2001 (3) TMI 158

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s in terms of Rule 173Q(1). He has also confiscated five pieces of CAM Dobby Heads seized from the appellant's premises, with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The demand arises as a result of holding that the brand name "Shah Trumpelt" which was affixed on the goods belonged to M/s. Shah Engineering Works which was a partnership firm doing trading activity and not registered SSI unit carrying out manufacture. The further ground for confirmation of duty is that the appellants were selling their goods to M/s. L.M.S. Marketing Pvt. Ltd. which was a related person and therefore, the price at which M/s. L.M.S. Marketing Pvt. Ltd. sold the goods was adopted as the assessable value of goods cleared by the appellants.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....brand name would exclusively to them. They have also claimed that the Shah Engg. Works were themselves registered as SSI units and as such were eligible for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 and accordingly the mischief of para 7 would not be attracted to the appellants for using brand name of "Shah Engg. Works". In support of their contention they have shown copies of the certificate of M/s. Shah Engg. Works given to them by General Manager, District Industries Centre, Surender Nagar. They have also enclosed a copy of certificate dated 18-4-1994 from Directorate of Industries under which the SSI certificate has been revalidated after certifying their last 3 years book of account. It has also been mentioned in the said ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hief of para 7 of the Notification is not attracted as far as affixing the brand name "Shah Trumpelt" is concerned." Following the ratio set out above which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, we hold that the benefit of Notification 175/86 cannot be denied to the appellants on the above ground. 3. The issue is to whether the appellants herein and M/s. L.M.S. Marketing Privt. Ltd. are related persons is also covered by the Tribunal's decision in the case of Narendra Machine Works cited supra wherein the Tribunal has held that the mutuality of interest between M/s. Narendra Machine Works and M/s. L.M.S. Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in view of the fact that both Surendra Shah and Narendra Shah are Directors in both companies....