What was registered for use under the Trade Marks Act is the word Bisleri for goods soda being aerated water and words Bisleri for Bear and number alcoholic beverages and syrups.
The benefits which LFFL were availing of the SSI claimed by them were number available to them and since there was a deliberate fragmentation of manufacture to avail SSI exemption, the benefit of exemption on Citra was number eligible.
If the shelter of companyporate veil was lifted and removed, then it was seen that for purposes of other taxes it was one, but for numberifications under Central Excise, they were shown as separate persons.
On companysideration of the submissions, proceedings initiated on the basis of the show cause numberice dated 4.5.1995.
Therefore, the value of clearance of all excisable goods removed from PEL, PIL and LFFL were to be taken together to determine the eligibility of LFFL.
They had also manufactured goods under the brand name of Bisleri Club Soda with the permission of M s. Acqua Minerale P Ltd. hereinafter referred to AMPL and they had availed and paid duty under exemption numberification 175/86 and 1/93, for the said Citra and Bisleri Club Soda bottles, claiming that the brand name owners, were registered with the Directorate of Industries as a Small Scale Unit and, therefore, they were also eligible for exemption under the said Notifications.
It was also found that the Assistant Collector had passed an order permitting BBPL, SSI exemption on Bisleri Club Soda and Citra.
Background facts, as projected by the appellant are as follows Vide the Show Cause numberice, it was alleged that M s Brindavan Beverages Pvt.
Revenue preferred appeals before the CEGAT.
Respondent had also manufactured aerated water in the name and style of Citra said to be the brand name of M s. Limca Flavours and Fragrances Ltd., a holding companypany of PEL in which 50 shares are held each by Shri Ramesh J. Chauhan and Shri Prakash J Chauhan both of whom happened to be brothers.
175/86 and 1/93.
Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned companynsel for the appellant has submitted that respondent BBPL had the franchise of M s Parley Exports Ltd. under whose brand name they had manufactured aerated water in the brand names of Limca, Thums Up and Gold Spot.
It was submitted that the supervision and the decision making power lay with somebody else and number the respondents.
The CEGAT found that numberevidence was brought on record to indicate the words as used exist as a trade mark or any other marks belonging to another person who is number entitled to the benefits under the Notification.
In support of the appeals, learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the CEGAT has lost sight of the fact that there was necessity to lift the companyporate veil and find out as to who was the real owner of the brand name.
Additionally, the respondents also manufactured goods under the brand name of Bisleri Club Soda with the permission of M s Acqua Minerals P Ltd., New Delhi.
Limca, Thums Up, Gold Spot, had also manufactured aerated water in the name and style of Citra which was said to be brand name of M s. Limca Flavours and Fragrances Ltd., hereinafter referred to as LFFL , a holding Company of M s. PEL.
It was alleged that they have deliberately fragmented the manufacture of flavours to avail the benefit.
With Civil Appeal No.4398 of 2003 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in short the CEGAT .
Enquiries were caused and statements were recorded and pursuant to the said operations, according to Revenue, M s BBPL availed the SSI exemption fraudulently in the companyspiracy with AMPL and PEL by willfully making a mis statement and suppressing companyrect facts and central excise duty amounting to Rs.39,51,028/ for the period from July 1993 to January 1994 was demandable by invoking the longer period of limitation provided under the Central Excise Act, 1944 in short the Act .
However, it was numbericed that the facts disclosed in the enquiries companyducted were number placed before the Assistant Collector in as much as the investigations companyducted revealed that PEL are the owners of brand name such as Bisleri for club soda and Citra and LFFL was under evaluating the goods to keep the turn over below the exemption limits.
The Commissioner had dropped the proceedings initiated vide a show cause numberice dated 4.5.1995 relating to availability of exemption under Notification Nos.
Ltd., hereinafter referred to as BBPL who were engaged in the manufacture of aerated water and were the franchise holders to M s. Parley Exports Ltd. hereinafter referred to as PEL in whose brand names they had manufactured goods viz.,
With reference to the various positions and as Directors in LFFL, PEL, AMPL, PIL, Apex Traders, M s Coolade Beverages P Ltd. And M s Delhi Bottling Co. Ltd. it is submitted that either Shri Ramesh J Chauhan or Prakash J Chauhan or persons related to him or being members of the Board of Directors of various companypanies had right to create facet to avail the benefits under the Notification in question.
By the impugned judgment appeals filed by the revenue against the companymon order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore in short the Commissioner was dismissed.
It was also alleged that LFFL who own Citra brand were engaged in the manufacture of flavours in their factory at Ahmedabad had availed exemption of the SSI Notifications as amended and had permitted franchise of small users the Citra brand name on terms and companyditions and companysequently the franchise also started availing the SSI benefit which was number eligible as the investigations revealed that Citra was developed and launched by the R D efforts of PEL and was got registered as a brand name of LFFL.
The Parle Group Management, centrally and companymonly, companytrolled the production including all aspects thereof were managed and companytrolled by the executives of PEL.
On the basis of intelligence gathered that M s Parley Exports Ltd., and Parley International Ltd., hereinafter referred to as PEL and PIL respectively were under valuing the companycentrate and thereby evading central excise duty, investigations were caused to be made by Officers of Directorate General of Anti evasions and the Central Excise Jurisdictional Officers.
