COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Vs. JAYA STORES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The respondents M/s. Jaya Stores, Thiruvananthapuram, is engaged in packing Refined, Bleached and Deodorised (RBD) palm oil from bulk packs to retail packs. By virtue of a Note introduced in Chapter 15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, vide Finance Act, 2003, the respondents are manufacturers of RBD Palmolein. RBD Palmolein, packed and cleared by the respondents used to be exempt from Excise Duty in terms of Notification No. 6/2002 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -2002, as amended by Notification No. 6/2003 -C.E., dated 1 -3 -2003. This Notification was further amended by Notification No. 37/2003 -C.E., dated 30 -4 -2003 and the exemption granted to RBD Palmolein bearing a brand name and put up in unit containers for retail sale, was withdrawn. In the wake of this amendment, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondents proposing to recover the exemption availed by it on clearances of RBD Palmolein made by it during the period 1 -3 -2003 to 30 -4 -2003. An amount of Rs. 19,17,531/ - was proposed to be demanded along with applicable interest. It was also proposed to penalize the respondents. After due process of law, the Assistant Commissioner dropped the proposals contained in the Show Cause Notice. On appeal filed by the Revenue, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of the Original Authority vide the impugned order.

(2.) IN the appeal filed before the Tribunal, the Revenue has taken the ground that the RBD Palmolein packed in unit containers and cleared by the respondents bore a label, which showed that the same was packed by M/s. Jaya Stores, Chalai, Thiruvananthapuram. This indicated a relation between the goods and the packer. M/s. Jaya Stores, Chalai, Thiruvananthapuram, was a brand name as per the definition of 'brand name' in the Notification. Therefore, the RBD Palmolein packed in unit containers cleared by the respondents was not eligible for the exemption it had enjoyed at the time of clearance of such goods during the material period.

(3.) REVENUE also places reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in CCE, Trichy v. Grasim Industries - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 123 (S.C.) in support of the above ground. It is submitted that in the above judgment, the Honble Supreme Court had held that the brand name would include the name of a company. In the context of a trade name, the words a name and or any writing would cover the name of a company so long as it is used in relation to the product and is used for the purpose of indicating a connection in the course of trade between the product and other person.