Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2009 (6) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (6) TMI 483 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYNon declaration of brand name- suppression- whether CESTAT was justified in holding that non-declaration of brand name does not amount to suppression and hence the limitation period would not apply? held that – the answer of this question is negative against the assessee as the assesese was using a brand name or trade name on his goods admittedly which belonged to another and did not disclose them in the classification list. whether in the light of the fact that the assessee had full knowledge of brand name not belonging to them, have used the same and not disclosed to the department, amount to suppression of facts? held that- the answer of this question is affirmative in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. whether the CESTAT was justified in holding that proviso (2) of section 11 (A) of Central excise Act does not apply? held that- the answer of this question is in favour of revenue and against the assessee as the mark Ram’s belongs to the sister company of the respondent. However, the sister company was not eligible for exemption nor could the respondent knowing that the mark belongs to another use the same. Thus this case clearly a case of suppression.
|