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

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (8) TMI 267

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by M/s. Parle (Exports) Ltd. (PEL, for short) and not AMPL – Held that:- Relying upon the decision in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd [ 2007 (6) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] has held that in such circumstances, extended period of time cannot be invoked against the assessee for invoking any demand because the arrangement between PEL and AMPL was not known to the assessee therein SSI exemption – Using the brand name of others - Wrong availment of SSI exemption for goods using brand name CITRA – Held that:- Relying upon the decision in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd [ 2007 (6) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], it is held that applicant was not aware of the arrangement between LFFPL and PE .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y amount of Rs.11,44,571 and (iii) wrong availment of SSI exemption for goods using brand name CITRA accounting for duty demand of Rs.38,30,633/-. 4. The counsel submits that the first demand is based on Sales Manager Report (SMR) submitted by the applicant-company to M/s. Parle (Exports) Ltd. for the purpose of deciding budget for sales promotion and also fixing targets for subsequent years. He points out that in the statement of Joint Managing Director recorded on 8.2.94 9.2.94, the JMD had told that the sales figures may not tally with clearance figures for various reasons like sometimes they had procured goods manufactured by other franchisees in other regions and sold in their region which may get reflected in their sales report bu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cts, the Hon. Apex court in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs Brindavan Beverages (P) Ltd. 2007 (213) ELT 487 (SC) has held that in such circumstances, extended period of time cannot be invoked against the assessee for invoking any demand because the arrangement between PEL and AMPL was not known to the assessee therein. He submits that same reasoning should be applied in the applicant s case also. 6. In respect of the third demand relating to CITRA, the counsel submits that the argument of department is that value of clearance of LFFPL, owners of the brand name and PEL have to be clubbed together and once they are clubbed together, the clearance of brand name owner exceeded the specified aggregate value of clearance and they were not eligible .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d as sufficient for hearing of appeals. 9. Opposing the prayer, Ld. AR for Revenue submits that demand for clandestine removal was based not only on the SMR but also on the budget shared by the applicant for advertisement which amounts were paid to M/s. SAMS the company centrally doing the advertisement campaign. He also says that there is no evidence of any clearances from other regions which were brought to this region and sold. He also relies on the corroborative statement of S/Shri Sanzghiri, C.G.Hegde, R.Srinivasan Iyer, S.M. Dhareshwar and Ashish Sethi. In the case of clearance of Bislery Club Soda his argument is that AMPL was not the brand name owner but PEL was the owner of the brand name and they were the persons owning the trad .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... antial deposit for admission of the appeal. In the matter of other two demands, we find that the issues which have been raised in the SCNs and confirmed against the assessee in the adjudication order has been ruled in favour of the assesses in view of the judgements of Supreme Court. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) seems to have introduced different set of facts at the stage of deciding the appeal. 12. We also note that there is a deposit of Rs.10 lakhs made by applicant in this matter which is sufficient for admission of the appeal. It is so ordered. Further, there shall be stay on collection of dues arising from the impugned order during pendency of the appeals. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Cen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates