LexCOMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD IV versus M/S. STANGEN IMMUNO DIAGNOSTICS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 528 A COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD IV B c v. M/S. STANGEN IMMUNO DIAGNOSTICS (Civil Appeal No. 9157 of 2003) MARCH 19, 2015. [A.K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] Central Excise Act, 1944 - Excise duty - Benefit of exemption/concessional rate of duty under the Notification No.175186-CE dated 1.3.1986 - Assessee-Small scale industrial unit (SS/) using the brand name 'Stangen' on the goods manufactured by it - Assessee granted benefit o of exemption/concessional rate of excise duty under the Notification - Subsequently, issuance of notice to assessee that benefit of Notification was claimed wrongly as the use of brand name 'Stangen' and also logo belonged to DRL Company-manufacturer of bulk drug and E under the Notification, exemption is denied in cases where the manufacturer (SS/) affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name registered or not, of another person who is not eligible for grant of exemption under the Notification - Proceedings dropped by the Adjudicating F Authority on the ground that the goods were different - Tribunal also dismissed appeal filed by the department holding that the goods manufactured by the assessee were different from the goods manufactured by DRL - On appeal, held: Authorities below did not examine the matter G in the right perspective - Factual aspects can be established before the Adjudicating Authority - Thus, matter remitted back to the Commissioner, Central Excise H 528 ( COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD IV v. 529 STANGEN IMMUNO DIAGNOSTICS to hear the respondent de nova on the said notice and A decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the law laid down - Notification No. 175186-CE dated 1.3.1986. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I vs. B Mahaan Dairies (2004) 11 SCC 798; Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-II vs. Bhalla Enterprises 2005 (8) sec 308; Tarai Food Ltd. v. CCE (2007) 12 sec 721; CCE vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. 2005 (3) SCR 466: (2005) 4 SCC 194; Nirlex Spares (P) Ltd. vs. C Commissioner of Central Excise 2008 (1) SCR 117: (2008) 2 sec 628 - referred to. Case Law Reference (2004) 11 sec 798 Referred to. Para 7 2005 (8) sec 308 Referred to. Para 8 (2007) 12 sec 121 Referred to. Para 11 2005 (3) SCR 466 Referred to. Para 12 2008 (1) SCR 117 Referred to. Para 14 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9157 of 2003. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.2002 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench, Bangalore in Appeal No. E/66/1999. A. K. Sanghi, Nisha Bagchi, Ritesh Kumar, B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. Neelima Tripathi, S. Majuvdan (For Dr. Kailash Chand) for the Respondent. D E F G H 530 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. The respondent herein is the manufacturers of composite diagnostics or laboratory regents and pharmaceutical goods. It is registered as a B small scale industrial unit (SSI unit). The respondent was using the brand name 'Stangen' on the goods manufactured by it. It is an admitted case that this brand name 'Stangen' was affixed on the packing of the goods and even on the goods manufactured. The respondent started availing the C benefit of exemption/concessional rate of duty under Notification No.175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986 which grants exemption or concessional rate of excise duty to the SSI units. o 2. However, in the year 1997 a show cause notice was issued to the respondent by the appellanU Excise Department stating that the respondent is wrongly claiming the benefit of the aforesaid Notification inasmuch as use of the brand name 'Stangen' and also the logo E belonged to Dr.K.Anji Reddy, Chairman of Dr.Reddy's Laboratories (DRL). It was stated that DRL is the manufacturer of bulk drugs falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and the trade mark 'Stangen' and related logo are used on the printed labels F foils of the P & P medicine manufactured by DRL and also appear on .the classification list filed by the DRL. On this basis in the show cause notice it was mentioned that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under the aforesaid Notification inasmuch as G para 7 of the said Notification denied exemption in those cases where the manufacturer (SSI) affixes the specified goods with a brand
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.