CCE v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders

The Commissioner of Income Tax IV vs. New Bombay Goods Transport

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs. M/S. Australian Foods India Private Ltd

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, leaving the

…We have today delivered a judgment in CCE v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders, (2004) 11 SCC 801 wherein we have held in respect of another notification containing identical words that it makes no difference whether the goods on 3 (2004) 11 SCC 801 4 (2004) 11 SCC 798 1 Page 16 JUDGMENT which the trade name or mark is used are the same in respect of which the trade mark is registered. Even if the goods are different, so long as the trade name or brand name of some other company is used the benefit of the notification would not be available. Further, in our view,…

Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai vs. M/S. Australian Foods India Private Ltd

The appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, leaving the

…We have today delivered a judgment in CCE v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders, (2004) 11 SCC 801 wherein we have held in respect of another notification containing identical words that it makes no difference whether the goods on 3 (2004) 11 SCC 801 4 (2004) 11 SCC 798 1 Page 16 JUDGMENT which the trade name or mark is used are the same in respect of which the trade mark is registered. Even if the goods are different, so long as the trade name or brand name of some other company is used the benefit of the notification would not be available. Further, in our view,…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Surat-I vs. M/S. Favourite Industries

…JUDGMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.949 OF 2004 COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, SURAT-I APPELLANT VERSUS M/S.FAVOURITE INDUSTRIES RESPONDENT W I T H C.A.NO.3588 OF 2005 C.A.NO.3638 OF 2006 C.A.NO.1388 OF 2008 O R D E R For the sake of convenience, we take the facts in C.A.NO.949/2004, for disposal of these appeals. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 1 JUDGMENT 'the Tribunal'), Mumb…

Commnr. of Central Excise, Raipur vs. M/S. Hira Cement

Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside and the

…on and Steel Co. Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand and Others, (2005) 4 SCC 272 and Government of India & Ors. v. Indian Tobacco Association, 2005 (6) SCALE 683]. In Commissioner of C. Ex., Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders [2004 (165) ELT 481 : (2004) 11 SCC 801], the expression "such brand name" was considered holding: "7. The Tribunal had also held that under the Notification the use must be of "such brand name". The Tribunal has held that the words "such brand name" shows that the very same brand name or trade name must be used. The Tribunal has held that if there are any differences then the exe…

M/S. Compack Pvt. Ltd vs. Commnr. of Cent. Ex. & Customs, Vadodara

The appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent

…prises [2004 (173) ELT 225 (SC)], it was held : "The basic rule in interpretation of any statutory provision is that the plain words of the statute must be given effect to\005" In Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders [(2004) 11 SCC 801], it was held : "\005It is settled law that exemption notifications have to be strictly construed. They must be interpreted on their own wording. Wordings of some other notification are of no benefit in construing a particular notification\005" The said decision was followed in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I vs. Mahaan Dair…