By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI: FEB 25, 2015: AGGRIEVED by the order passed by the Tribunal - 2008-TIOL-1604-CESTAT-MAD in dismissing the appeal filed by it, the Department is before the High Court in the present appeal.

The Court found that the issue, which has been canvassed by the Revenue before the Court is primarily factual in nature challenging the finding of fact and there appears to be no substantial question of law arising for consideration.

The respondent assessee was clearing their goods, viz., refined groundnut oil, sunflower oil and palm oil using the logo " S.V.S . & SONS". The Assistant Commissioner was of the view that S.V.S . & Sons was a brand name and, accordingly, extended the benefit of Notification No.6 /2002 dated 1.3.02 and the benefit of 'Nil' duty was extended. In this case, the company registered as brand name/trademark S, V & S in a rectangular box. On review, the Commissioner directed the Department to file an appeal and on the appeal filed by the Department, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of the original authority granting benefit of the notification and, accordingly, rejected the appeal. The Department, aggrieved, preferred further appeal to the Tribunal, which was also dismissed the appeal by recording a finding of fact.

And the Revenue is before the High Court.

When the case was called, there was no Counsel present for Revenue. The high Court observed,

It is evident from the record that all the three authorities have uniformly taken the view that the goods cleared by the 2nd respondent/assessee bear a superscription "manufactured and packed by S.V.S . & Sons", which is not a brand name or trade name. There is a clear distinction between the brand name used and the superscription as found in the packaging. On this finding of fact, all the three authorities have held that the 2nd respondent/assessee is entitled to the benefit of Notification 06/02 dated 1.3.02. In the light of such a concurrent finding, this Court is of the considered view that said concurrent finding of fact does not need to be interfered with, as there is no error or infirmity in the finding arrived at by the lower authorities. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal as there is no question of law that arise for consideration.

The Revenue Appeal Dismissed.

(See 2015-TIOL-458-HC-MAD-CX)