Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2012 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 694 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - Notification No.1/1993 - Benefit of concessional rate of duty denied - the said brand Que is not assessee's brand and the said brand is of M/s Que Pharma, a partnership firm, which is having its own separate existence - Held that:- On perusal of the deed of assignment it can be said that deed of assignment was in respect of approximately 50 items manufactured by M/s Que Pharma, a partnership firm and the brand name as such have been assigned to the current appellant. In the Notification itself, explanation-IX mentions that brand name or trade shall mean a brand name or trade name whether registered or not. Thus, reference to brand name or trade name in Clause-4 of the Notification & the facts of the case of Jepika Paints [2008 (1) TMI 359 - HIGH COURT MADHYA PRADESH] is not to the registered trade name or brand name. Under these circumstances, and in view of the specific provisions contained in the exemption notification, the Tribunal erred in holding that the appellants were not entitled to be considered for grant of registration for exemption for period commencing from 19-4-1995 and ending on 18-4-1996 - appellant herein cannot be denied the benefit of SSI notification on the ground that the brand Que is not registered in their name - in favour of assessee only to the extent that the Tribunal shall now consider the case of the appellants with regard to the period commencing from 19-4-1995 to 19-4-1996.
|