CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
Mrs. K.K. Usha, P.G. CHACKO, K.K. Bhatia, JJ.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh -Appellant
Versus
Fine Industries -Respondent
Final Order No. 443/2002-B Misc. Order No. 55/2002 Appeal Nos. E/2272, 1290-1297,2383/2001-B, 443 of 2002, 55 of 2002, 2383 of 2001, 2272 of 2001, 1290 of 2001, 1297 of 2001
Decided On : 22-10-2002
Per P.G. Chacko :
We have before us the following two issues referred by the 'B' Bench as per Misc. Order No. 23/2002-B, dated 4-3-2002 in the captioned appeals:-
(a) Whether the benefit of small scale exemption is available to a manufacturer who is manufacturing and clearing excisable goods bearing Brand name/Trade name similar to the Brand name belonging to another person?
(b) Whether the benefit of small scale exemption is deniable to a manufacturer, using Brand name/Trade name of another person, only when the excisable goods manufactured by him are same goods as being manufactured or dealt with by the persons owning the Brand name/Trade name?
2. The respondents in Appeal No. E/2383/2001, M/s Fine Industries, were engaged in the manufacture and clearance of Diesel Engine parts (CET sub-heading 8409.00). During 1994-95 to 1997-98 (up to 17-10-1997), they manufactured and cleared without payment of duty Diesel Engine parts namely Rocker Box, Rocker Box with Lever and Fuel Pump Bracket under the brand name 'BHALLA FINE' as also Lubricating Pumps under the brand name 'BHALLA'. The brand name 'BHALLA' belonged to M/s. United Foundry and Engineering Works who had got the brand name registered in their favour under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Trade Marks Act) in respect of Lubricating Pumps long before the above period. The Department by show-cause notice dated 31-3-1999 proposed to recover duty of excise on the above clearances by invoking the extended period of limitation, alleging that M/s. Fine Industries were not eligible for the SSI exemption under Notification Nos. 1/93-C.E. (as amended) and 16/97-C.E. on account of the bar contained in Paragraph 4 of Notification No. 1/93 and the corresponding provision of Notification No. 16/97. The show cause notice was contested by the party. The Adjudicating Authority ruled out the applicability of Para 4 ibid and allowed the benefit of SSI exemption to the assessee in respect of Diesel Engine Parts cleared under 'BHALLA FINE' brand name by taking the view that the said brand name was different from 'BHALLA' brand name of M/s. United Foundry and Engineering Works and that the assessee's goods affixed with the former brand name were different from the goods (Lubricating Pumps) in respect of which the latter brand name stood registered in favour of M/s. United Foundry
3. The respondents in Appeal No. 2272/2001, M/s. Sputnik Switch Gears Pvt. Ltd., manufactured 'electrical apparatus for protecting electrical circuits for voltage not exceeding 1000 Volts' (falling under Chapter 85 of the Schedule to the CETA) and cleared the same without payment of duty under the brand name 'Sputnik' which belonged to M/s. Sarvjit Electric Works during 1994-95. To be precise, the goods so cleared were Miniature Circuit Breakers (MCBs). The Department by show cause notice dated 4-6-1998 raised a demand of duty on the respondents for the said period alleging that they were not eligible for SSI exemption in respect of the MCBs under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. (as amended) on account of the bar of para 4 thereof. The original authority accepted the Department's view and confirmed the demand of duty but the lower Appellate authority set a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.