Case Law Details
M/s Rastogi Furnishers & Decorators P. Ltd. Vs. CCE (CESTAT Delhi)
Aaffixing the family name or brand name in the letter head does not amount to the use of brand name of third parties. In the instant case, there is no third party who owns the brand name of ‘Rastogi‘. The Department has neither issued any notice nor examined the firms of family members who are also engaged in the similar line of business. Only the assessee- Appellants have been made target which is not desirable. Thus, the Department has made out a poor case.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:-
Both the present appeals have been filed against the order-in-original No. JAI-EXCUS-000-COM-27-28-16-17 dated 09.02.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur. The period in dispute is 01.10.2009 to 09.10.2013.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, during the period under consideration, the assessee- Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of steel and wooden furniture which is being sold without bearing any brand name. On 09.10.2013, search was conducted at the business premises of the assessee- Appellants and the furniture was seized which was valued at Rs. 9,01,150/-. By the show cause notice dated 04.04.2014, the Department has demanded the duty on this amount. But, by the second show cause notice dated 19.01.2015, Central Excise duty demand was enhanced. Finally, by the impugned order the excise duty of Rs. 59,17,272/- was demanded and penalties were imposed. Being aggrieved, the assessee- Appellants have filed the present appeals.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
