TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 388X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o December 1994 for demand of the duty of ₹ 3,78,241/- which in the present case which has been adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 12-5-1998, had also been adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 31-8-2001 along with another show cause notice for an amount of ₹ 5,34,274/- for the period from July to September 1994, the appeal against the Joint Commissioner’s order dated 31-8-2001 had been filed to the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 28-6-2004 had set aside the order. By the order dated 28-6-2004 of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal filed by the appellant had been allowed and in that order it has been held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 16-12-2005 dismissed the appeal. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Ankit Vishnoi, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the brand name Blue Dot , along with the other brand name Blue , Blue Spot and Blue lines belong to the appellant, that the Department s allegation is that the brand name Blue Dot is owned by M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd., Kanpur, but in this regard, no evidence has been produced by the Department, that on 1-4-1992, the appellant by a Deed of Assignment had assigned the brand name Blue Dot to M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd. f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri Ranjan Khanna, the learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and pleaded that the Deed of Assignment dated 1-4-1992 clearly mentions that by this Assignment Deed, the appellant had assigned this brand name and transferred it to M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd. and, therefore, w.e.f. 1-4-1992 it is M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd. who were owner of the brand, that though there is an another agreement bearing the same date - 1-4-1992, which mentions that the Assignment Deed of 1-4-1992 between the appellant and M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd. has been cancelled on account of some d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and both the demands are on the basis of denial of SSI exemption in respect of the goods bearing the brand name Blue Dot on the ground that the brand name Blue Dot does not belong to appellant and it belongs to M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd. However, it is seen that the show cause notice for October 1994 to December 1994 for demand of the duty of ₹ 3,78,241/- which in the present case which has been adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 12-5-1998, had also been adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 31-8-2001 along with another show cause notice for an amount of ₹ 5,34,274/- for the period from July to September 1994, the appeal against the Joint Commissioner s o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd. and there is another agreement of the same date which cancelled the Assignment Deed, as a result of which the appellant remain the owner of the brand. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not clarify this aspect, as according to the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, the owner of the brand name were M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd. and the transfer of the brand name and goodwill of the business must be from M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd. to M/s. Universal Detergents (P) Ltd. If this is so, the owner of the brand name would be M/s. Universal Detergents (P) Ltd. Thus, the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order are against the Department stand. In this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns and transfer unto the Assignees (M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd.,) all the said trademarks along with the goodwill of the business . Thus trademarks and goodwill of the business has been transferred from M/s. Universal Detergent (Assigner) to M/s. Standard Sulphonator (Assignees), but this is ab initio wrong because M/s. Universal Detergent were not the owner of brand name. In fact the owner of the brand were M/s. Standard Sulphonators and therefore, the transfer of brand goodwill of the business must be from M/s. Standard Sulphonators to M/s. Universal Detergent . 8. We also find that by the order dated 28-6-2004 of the Commissioner (Appeals), the appeal filed by the appellant had been allowed and in that order it has been held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
