LexUNISON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. versus COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 2 S.C.R. 607 UNISON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. V. COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA Civil Appeal Nos 6788-6789 of 2005 FEBRUARY 13, 2009 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ) Central Excise Act, 1944 : A B s. 5-A - SS/ exemption Notification - Benefit not allowed c in respect of goods bearing brand name of another person - Items manufactured by assessee affixed with stickers bearing UTS and TSN - Revenue treating words "UTS" and "TSN" as brand names of other persons disallowing benefit of Notification - CESTAT upholding demand of duty and penalty imposed on assessee-company except the separate penalty imposed D on its director - HELD: In view of the position in law indicated in various decisions, and conclusions of CESTAT being essentially factual, no scope for interference. The appellants were in the business of E manufacturing and selling, inter alia, ice-cream makers in their own brand name 'CREMICA' and were availing benefit of SSI exemption Notification. The items sold to United Tele Shopping (UTS) and Tele Shopping Network (TSN) were being ~~xamined by supervisors of these customers before dispatch from the factory and stickers bearing UTS/ F TSN were being affixed thereto. The Revenue treated these words 11UTS" and 11TSN" as brand names belonging to other persons and disallowed the benefit of exemption Notification. The CESTAT upheld the demand of duty and penalty imposed on the company but set G aside the separate penalty imposed on -its Director. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court 607 H 608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 2 S.C.R. A HELD : The conclusions of CESTAT are essentially factual. In view of the factual position noted by CESTAT and the position in law indicated in the decisions, there is no scope for interference. [para 1 O] [622-G] Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy v. Rukmani B Pakkwel/ Traders 2004 (11) SCC 801; Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I v. Mahaan Dairies 2004 (11) SCC 798; Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta v. Emkay Investments (P) Ltd. and Anr. 2005 (1) SCC 526; Reiz Electrocontrols (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, C Delhi-I 2006 (6) SCC 213; Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigar-1 v. Mahaan Dairies 2004 (166) ELT 23 (SC); and Pahwa Chemicals Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi 2005 (189) ELT 257 (SC) - relied on. D Union of India v. Paliwal Electricals (P) Ltd. And Another (1996) 3 sec 407 - referred to. Case Law Reference 2004 (11) sec 801 relied on para 6 E 2004 (11) sec 798 relied on para 7 2005 (1 > sec 526 relied on para 8 2006 (6) sec 213 relied on para 9 2004 (166) ELT 23 relied on para 9 ., F (1996) 3 sec 407 referred to para 10 2005 (189) 1ELT 257(SC) relied on para 11 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos G 6788-6789 of 2005 H From the final Judgement and Order dated 1.03.2005 of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi in Final Order No. 250-251/058. Jagjit Singh Chhabra, for the Appellants. h. .~ ~ -t ' I ~ :: UNISON ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. V. 609 COM., CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA "!' ~ S. Washim A. Qadri, Anil Katiyar, Shweta Garg, Ashish A 4 Gopal Garg B.K. Prasad and B.V. Balaram Das, for the , Respondent. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. B 1. In these appeals challenge is to the order passed by "' the Customs, Excise & Service TaxAppellate Tribunal, New Delhi ·-i (in short 'CESTAT'). The basic issue is whether the appellants are clearing excisable goods manufactured by them bearing c __ , the brand name of another person. 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The SSI Exemption Notification which provides exemption to the excisable goods manufactured by a SSI unit provides that the exemption shall not apply to goods bearing the brand D ~ name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another ' persons. Explanation to Notification defines the brand name as . I a name or mark, such as a symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to the specified goods for the purpose of indicating a connection in E the course of a trade between specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person . .. ~ According to the appellants they manufac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.