COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. SATYAM ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 by them bearing the brand name of 'Takai', Taiwa', 'Calvin', and 'Venus'; that the Dy. Commissioner under Order -in -Original No. 68/2001, dated 28 -3 -2001 confiscated the goods which were seized by the officers on 14 -8 -2000 and imposed penalty on the ground that Shri Deepak Kumar, partner, in his statement had admitted that the brand names which they were affixing on their speaker column belongs to others; that on appeal, filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals), under the Impugned Order, had set aside the Adjudication Order holding that the brand name were general in nature as the Department has not brought any material to show as to whom the said brand name belong to. The learned SDR, further, submitted that as Shri Deepak Kumar Aggarwal, partner, has himself admitted that brand 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 SS1 unit and was entitled to the exemption notification in order to avail the benefit of the notification. He relied upon the decision in the case of Kanahiya Aqua Control (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh - 2001 (133) E.L.T. 232 (Tribunal) wherein it has been held by the Tribunal that to avail the benefit of SSI notification the assessee is required to prove that this is not the Trade Mark of somebody who is not entitled to the benefit of notification.

(3.) Shri V.K. Gupta, learned Advocate, submitted that it is the practice in the market to use general names as brand name which belongs to no one in particular; that in terms of Board's Circular No. 52/52/94 -CX, dated 1 -9 -94 the onus of proving that the Appellants were manufacturing goods with the brand name of another person is on the Department; that the Department has failed to discharge the said onus.