Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (1) TMI 422 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Whether the appellants are entitled to avail benefit of exemption Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 using their own brand name or not?
2. Whether extended period limitation can be invoked.

Analysis:
1. Issue (a): The main contention was whether the appellants could avail the benefit of the exemption notification using their own brand name. The Tribunal noted that M/s. RMT was the original owner of the brand name RIAT, with the current appellants being the same partners as M/s. RMT. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal emphasized that if a person uses the brand name of another firm where they are a Director, Partner, or Proprietor, it cannot be considered as using another person's brand name. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to avail the benefit of the exemption notification as they were using their own brand name RIAT.

2. Issue (b): The question of whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked was also considered. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue had knowledge since 1995 that the appellants were using the brand name RIAT owned by M/s. RMT. As there was no suppression of material facts by the appellants, the Tribunal ruled that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. Additionally, an assignment deed in 2006 confirmed that the appellants were the rightful owners of the brand name RIAT from that date onwards. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that no demand was sustainable against the appellants.

In conclusion, both issues were decided in favor of the appellants. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates