2004 (4) TMI 119

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mber (T)]. - The issue involved in this appeal filed by Revenue is whether M/s. Satyam Enterprises are manufacturing excisable goods bearing the brand name of another person and thereby making them ineligible for the benefit of Notification No. 8/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000. 2. Shri O.P. Arora, learned SDR, submitted that M/s. Satyam Enterprises manufacture speaker columns which are being cleared....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and name which they were affixing on their speaker columns belongs to other it was no more required by the Revenue to prove that the brand name was not of general nature but belongs to some other person; that once the respondents had categorically admitted that the brand name belongs to some other person the onus lies on the respondents to prove that the other person was a SSI unit and was entitle....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....has failed to discharge the said onus. 4. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The benefit of Notification No. 8/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000 does not apply to specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another person. Thus for denying the benefit of the notification it is to be shown that the brand name under which the excisable goods are ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... general and not registered in the name of the appellant, it is but natural that they could not produce any evidence to show that those brand names belonged to them. The use of general names by the appellants for their product, coupled with the failure of the department to attribute those trade names to another person/persons in the normal course of trade would not deprive the appellants the benef....