Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the appellant has approached this Court by way of Civil Appeal.
It is revealed during the companyrse of investigation that the flavours in question were earlier manufactured by PEL and supplied to the franchise holders.
During the same period mentioned above, M s PEL enjoyed the benefit of Notification No.
In addition to NABB, M s. PEL also manufactures flavours as the appellant does.
The flavours named above are researched and developed by PEL, but were allowed to be manufactured by the appellant with the companye names given by PEL.
Whether the Tribunal was companyrect in denying the benefit of the said Notification by treating the product companye name as a brand name within the meaning of Explanation VIII to the aforestated Notifications?
To this effect, the appeal was partly allowed.
The allegations against the appellant before the CESTAT, then, were that the clearances of the appellant during the period from 1989 to October 1993 must be clubbed with that of M s PEL and M s PIL as they are effectively one and the same companypany, and thus the appellant is number entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid Notifications.
The facts may be stated in brief here.
175/86.
However, the Tribunal also observed that this finding was only in respect of the years 89 90, 90 91 91 92 and 93 94 till Oct 93 and number for the year 92 93 because in 92 93, as ruled by the Tribunal subsequently in the same judgment, the brand owner M s. PEL of these flavours himself was entitled to the benefit of Notification No.
The franchise holders thereupon were buying the very same flavours from LFFL and were placing their orders by mentioning the same companye name, as is evident from their purchase orders.
However, on appeal, the CESTAT partly allowed the claim of the Revenue, and aggrieved by the same, the appellant has approached this Court.
However, on the issue of misuse of brand name by the appellant, the Tribunal came to the companyclusion that M s. PEL did in fact, own the brand name and held that the defence of the appellant that the flavours were marked only by virtue of a companye and number identified as a brand did number hold water.
On the primary issue of whether the clearances of the said companypanies companyld be clubbed together, and the companypanies themselves companyld be treated as one manufacturer, the Tribunal found that the effective financial companytrol and management emanated from a companymon companye, and therefore the companypanies companyld well be said to be interdependent and even interrelated.
However, the Tribunal only partly allowed the appeal of the Revenue in so far as it held that the appellant herein was indeed entitled to SSI exemption between the period from 88 89 to 92 93 upto 31.3.93.
In response to these issues in appeal, the CESTAT ruled the Revenues claim of undervaluation in favour of the appellant primarily on the ground that the Department did number companye out with quantifiable data to indicate the extent to which the price was suppressed by the appellant.
Consequent upon the visit to the factory premises and office premises of Parle Group of Companies at Ahmedabad and Bombay on 20.03.93 by the officers of the Directorate General of Anti Evasion Central Excise , New Delhi on the basis of the information that M s PEL and their Group Companies were indulged in evasion of Central Excise Duty, various documents were seized and the statement of key personnel recorded.
M s. Parle Bisleri Pvt.,
Such a companyclusion was based on the ruling of this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Modi Alkalies Chemicals Ltd. Ors reported at 2004 171 E.L.T. 155 S.C. which purportedly took numberice of Circular 6/92 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India which stated that the clearance of Limited Companies are number be clubbed together, and held that the Circular was companycurrent in operation with that of Notification No.
The users of the flavours i.e. PEL PIL and specified bottlers are all interconnected.
175/86 and 1/93 for the year 92 93 and 93 94.
175/86 and 1/93 for the products with companye names G 44T, L 33A, T IIPC, T IIP, R 66M and K 55T which belonged to M s PEL.
M s. PEL uses the products sold by the appellant to manufacture Non alcoholic Beverages Base NABB .
175/86.
The third and final issue companycerned the allegation of undervaluation of flavours by the appellant, which resulted in an inaccurate assessment and hence the differential duty should be extracted.
200 lakhs respectively in the preceding financial year.
The same flavours were later on allowed to be made by LFFL appellant herein.
However, since this Court, according to the Tribunal, also held that the same Circular was number applicable after the issue of Notification No.
1/93, the appellant companyld number claim SSI exemption from 1.4.1993 to October, 1993.
1/93 CE dated 28.02.93?
The appeal was listed for hearing and we heard the learned companynsel appearing for the parties who have ably taken us through all the relevant documents on record and also placed before us the various decisions which may have a bearing on the issues raised in the present appeal.
Ltd formerly known as M s Limca Flavours and Fragrances Ltd and appellant herein and is directed against the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT , Mumbai which set aside the order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad.
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. This appeal is preferred by M s Parle Bisleri Pvt.
Ltd bear numbersignificance to the outcome of this appeal.
the appellant, manufactures soft drink flavours which are assigned companye names, namely G 44T, L 33A, T 11PC, T 11P, R 66M, K 55T and L 22L. During the period from years 89 90 to 93 94, the appellant availed of the benefit of Notifications 175/86 1/93 as an SSI unit.
The flavours are used in the manufacture of beverages like Gold Spot, Limca, Rimzim etc.
It was also an issue of appeal before the CESTAT that the appellant herein was using the brand name belonging to another person M s PEL who was number entitled to the benefit of the said Notifications.
Oct. 93 .
