Per S.L. Peeran : All these appeals raise a common question of law and facts and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.

E/244/2005

2. This appeal arises from OIA No. 14/2004-CE dated 30.11.2004. In this case, the appellants were clearing goods without payment of appropriate duty. They were supplying tread materials viz. Precured Tread 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, GPA holder of the appellant unit and Shri C.T. Joseph, Authorised Signatory of M/s. Indian Rubber