Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 422 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - N/N. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - denial on the premise that appellants are using the brand name of another person - Extended period of limitation - Held that - M/s. RMT, was the owner of brand name RIAT and Shri Navrattan Singh and Shri Davinder Pal Singh were the partners of M/s. RMT. These two partners of M/s. RMT are the Directors of appellant firm - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ludhiana Versus M/s. Basant Presses (India) 2017 (6) TMI 805 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH , where it was held that if the person who is using the brand name of another firm where he is a Director, Partner or Proprietor then it cannot be said that the assessee is using the brand name of other person - the appellants are entitled to avail benefit of exemption N/N. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 as they are using their own brand name. Extended period of limitation - Held that - on 31.05.1995 the registration certificate was amended with effect from 01.04.1995 wherein it was in the knowledge of the Revenue that appellants are using the brand name RIAT which is owned by M/s. RMT. Therefore, it cannot be held that appellant has suppressed any material fact from the Revenue to invoke extended period of limitation - extended period cannot be invoked. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
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.
|