LexNIRLEX SPARES PVT. LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•. [2008] 1 S.C.R.117 NIRLEX SPARES PVT. LTD. II. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (C.A. No. 5204 of 2001) JANUARY 4, 2008 (TARUN CHATTERJEE & DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.) Central Excise Act, 1944: A B Notification No. 17511986-C. E dated 1. 3.1986 - Paragraph 7, Explanation VIII - Exemption to Small Scale C Industrial Units from payment of excise duty - Denied to assesse-manufacturer of Steel Healds, opining that it was making use of monogram of a related person - Held: Hexagonical artistic design printed by assessee on its corrugated boxes was not at all a brand name/trade name of D the Marketing Company - There is nothing to suggest that the design belonged to or was owned by Marketing Company or that it reflected any nexus between goods of assessee and the Marketing Company - Therefore, benefit under the Notification would be available to assessee. E Appeal: Finding of fact by Commissioner of Central Excise and CEGAT - Interference with - Held: Both the authorities failed to consider admissions and material evidence on record and F ..._ thereby came to a finding which on the face of it was not tenable - Therefore, it is open ·to interfere with such a finding of fact. The appellant-assessee was engaged in manufacture and sale of Steel Heads under the brand names/trade names 'lntatex' and 'lntaco', and was availing G exemption benefit as a Small Scale Industrial Unit under Notification No. 175/1986-CE .dated 1.3.1986. From 1.4.1990, the assessee started printing a hexagonal artistic design, alongwith its brand names/trade names on its 117 H 118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. A corrugated boxes. The investigating officer held that the said hexagonal design was the brand name and ""' monogram of a Marketing Company and the said Marketing Company was a related person; and since the assessee was making use of the Monogram of the related B person, it was not entitled to exemption in view of paragraph 7 read with Explanation XIII of the Notification for the period from 1.4.1988 to 30.9.1992. The investigating officer also held that assessable value of the goods sold by the assessee to the said related person would be the .,. c price at which the goods were sold by the said related person and not the price at which the goods were sold to it by the assessee. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee raising the demand for excise duty as also the value difference. The Commissioner of Central Excise confirmed the demand. The Customs Excise and : D Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal upheld only the demand for excise duty from the period 1.4.1990 as it accepted the stand of the assessee that the monogram was used only from that date. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the ..... instant appeal. E The questions for consideration before the Court were: whether the monogram was qualified to be the brand name/trade name of the Marketing Company? and whether the assessee was entitled to avail the exemption under Notification No. 175/1986-CE dated 1.3.1986? Ir-- F Allowing the appeal, the Court • HELD: 1.1 The hexagonal shape/design affixed on the corrugated boxes of the assesee was not at all a brand nam2/trade name of the Marketing Company. It can also G not be said that the hexagonal ·design aff.ixed on the corrugated boxes of the assessee reflected the nexus between the goods of the assessee and the Marketing Company. [para 10, 13) [125-C, 127-D] 1.2 According to the Marketing Company itself, the H said hexagonal shape/design did not belong to it nor did NIRLEX SPARES PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF 119 CENTRAL EXCISE it have any proprietary or other right over the same. A Besides, there is nothing on record to show that the said shape/design belonged to or was owned by the Marketing Company or it had permitted the assessee to use the same on its corrugated boxes. In fact, this position was specifically admitted during the cross-examination of the B Assistant Collector of Central Excise. In any view of the matter, the printing of the said design on the visiting cards · of executives of the Marketing Company and some of the "t drawings of the same company cannot confer any right or ownership of the Marketing Company over the said hexagonal shape/design nor can the same by itself mean c that the design had any association with the Marketing Company. [para 12] [126-D-G; 127-A] 1.3 Besides, it is an admitted position tha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.