Cce, Indore (M.P.) vs M/S. Ding Dong Apparels

THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

Date of Hearing/ Decision: 12/08/2015

Excise Appeals Nos.E/1637/2006 & 1638/2006-EX(DB)

[Arising out of common Order-in-Appeal No.IND-I/89 & 90/2006 dated 24.02.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals-I), Indore (M.P.).

CCE, Indore (M.P.) Appellants

Vs.

M/s. Ding Dong Apparels Respondent

Appearance:

Rep. by Shri M.S. Negi, AR for the appellant.

Rep. by none for the respondent.

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Coram: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Orders Nos.52562-52563/2015 dated:12.08.2015

Per B. Ravichandran:

The Revenue is in appeals before us against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent, who is manufacturer of readymade garments, availed the benefit of exemption under notification no.8/2001-CE dated 1.3.2001 incorrectly inasmuch as, they have used the brand name DING DONG which did not belong to them. On proceedings initiated against the respondent, the Original Authority confirmed the demand of Rs.86,999/- and imposed equal amount of penalty. He also imposed a penalty of Rs.15,000/- on the partner of the respondent firm. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the same. Aggrieved by the said order, Revenue is before us. In appeal, it is submitted that it is immaterial whether the registered brand name belonged to the respondent or to any other person. If the readymade garments are sold with registered brand name, the exemption under notification no.12/2001-CE is not available.

2. Ld. Authorised Representative reiterated the points in appeal. None appeared on behalf of the respondent.

3. It is seen that the Original Authority recorded that the requirement of the said notification for debarring the exemption under the said notification was with reference to use of registered brand name only and the respondent was found using the registered brand name DING DONG, though the said brand name was not found registered in the name of the respondent. This much has been accepted in the appeal filed by the Revenue also. In other words, the case is against the respondent only on the ground that he has used registered brand name of some other person because the said brand name admittedly was not registered in the name of the respondent. Coming to the fact whether the respondent did use brand name registered in the name of some other person, the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is categorical and clear. The trade mark DING DONG earlier registered with two different persons have not been renewed beyond the year 1983/1980. Shri Bhagwandas of Hyderabad has registered the mark DING DONG only in respect of footwear and Shri Krishna Padadas of Calcutta has only applied for registration of this trade mark for garments. Based on these findings

and also the fact that the respondent used part of the company name viz. Ding Dong Apparels in their garments, the denial of exemption under notification no.12/2001-CE was held to be wrong. There is no material in the Revenues appeal to counter the findings of the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) and as such, we find no ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue.

[Operative part of the order pronounced in the open Court]

( Ashok Jindal )

Member (Judicial)

( B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

Ckp.

1