2005 (11) TMI 133

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....read Rubber to M/s. Indian Rubber Products, who in turn, supplied the same to different regional stores of APSRTC against their purchase orders wherein one of the conditions was that the goods must be with the 'IPR' brand. The department, on investigation, found the supplies with the IPR Trade mark and had held that the appellants had used the brand name of another person. The appellants contended that the Revenue had not discharged their burden of showing that the appellants had used the brand name and 'IPR' mark was a brand name or trade name. It was submitted that the department had incorrectly assumed that the mark 'IPR' was a brand name or a trade name when it was not so. It was contended that the statements of Shri K.K. Balachandar, G....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....)      BHEL Ancilliary Association v. CCE, 1990 (49) E.L.T. 33 (Mad.) (viii)      Astra Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE, 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.). 3.The learned Counsel arguing for the appellants relied on the above judgments and also on the following rulings :- (i)         Deebha Foundry v. CCE, Coimbatore, 2001 (137) E.L.T. 1180 (Tri.-Chennai) (ii)        CCE, Chennai v. Turnbull Control System (I) Ltd., 2001 (127) E.L.T. 472 (Tri. - Chennai) 4.The learned Counsel also submitted that the demands were barred by time as the Show Cause Notice had been issued after two years of recording the statements. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....evenue went on appeal and got the order reversed which is now in challenge. Both these appeals arise from the same OIA No. 16/2004 dated 16-12-2004 confirming demands and imposing penalty on the firm as well as on the partner. In these cases also, the appellants had taken the same contentions as in the above appeals and submissions and same citations have been relied by the Counsel and the SDR. 10.On a careful consideration, it is seen from the statements of Shri K.K. Balachandar and Shri C.T. Joseph that both had not admitted the use of brand name or trade name. They had denied having supplied various branded goods to anyone including M/s. India Rubber Products for IRP brands. Shri K.K. Balachandar, GPA holder of the appellant unit deni....