KOHINOOR IMPEX Vs. POONA INDUSTRIAL HOTEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal [2008 (230) E.L.T. 185 (Tribunal)] in dismissing the appeal filed by it, the Department/appellant is before this Court by filing the present appeal.

(2.) The case was admitted by this Court on 16-12-2010. However, no question of law appears to have been framed, but notice was issued. After hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, we find that the issue, which has been canvassed by the Revenue before this Court is primarily factual in nature challenging the finding of fact and there appears to be no substantial question of law arising for consideration.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee was clearing their goods, viz., refined groundnut oil, sunflower oil and palm oil using the logo "S.V.S. and SONS". The Assistant Commissioner was of the view that S.V.S. and Sons was a brand name and, accordingly, extended the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002, dated 1-3-2002 and the benefit of 'Nil' duty was extended. In this case, the company registered as brand name/trademark S, V and S in a rectangular box. On review, the Commissioner directed the Department to file an appeal and on the said 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. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the order is set out hereunder :-