Nandkishore Babulal Desai and Vs. C.C.E. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....is that the brand name was registered in their name and under the drugs and cosmetic act and they were duly registered with the competent authority for the manufacture of goods in question. the contention of the revenue is that m/s.mercury laboratories is the owner of the brand name and the appellants were allowed to use their name on payment of royalty. in these circumstances, the applicants are not the owner of the brand name under which the goods were cleared. the case of the applicants is arguable which requires detailed examination of evidence to show that they are the owners of the brand name under which the goods were cleared.applicants in the stay applications pleaded financial hardship but not produced any evidence in support of their claim. keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it is not a fit case for total waiver of duty. therefore, the applicant m/s. sarpin pharmacal is directed to deposit a sum of rs. 1 lakh (rupees one lakh only) within a period of six weeks from today and report compliance on 27.2.2002. on deposit of rs. 1 lakh, the deposit of remaining amount of duty and penalties are waived for hearing of the appeal.

Judgment:

1. Appellants filed these applications for waiver of pre-deposit of Rs. 5,59,348 and penalties imposed on them.

2. In this case the benefit of Small Scale Notification No. 175/86-CE was denied to the applicants on the ground that they were clearing the goods under brand name of M/s. Mercury Laboratories.

4. The contention of the applicants is that the brand name was registered in their name and under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and they were duly registered with the competent authority for the manufacture of goods in question. The contention of the Revenue is that M/s.

Mercury Laboratories is the owner of the brand name and the appellants were allowed to use their name on payment of royalty. In these circumstances, the applicants are not the owner of the brand name under which the goods were cleared. The case of the applicants is arguable which requires detailed examination of evidence to show that they are the owners of the brand name under which the goods were cleared.

Applicants in the Stay applications pleaded financial hardship but not produced any evidence in support of their claim. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie, it is not a fit case for total waiver of duty. Therefore, the applicant M/s. Sarpin Pharmacal is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees One lakh only) within a period of six weeks from today and report compliance on 27.2.2002. On deposit of Rs. 1 lakh, the deposit of remaining amount of duty and penalties are waived for hearing of the appeal.