Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 54 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption under Notification No.8/2003 - Brand Name - More than one owner - Revenue was of the view that the appellants were using the brand name of another person and the factory was not located in a rural area and the exemption under Provision 4 of Notification 8/2003 was not available to them - Held that:- They were the owners of brand name “Vivek” and the brand name belongs to the family - It was argued by the appellants that the Hon’ble Civil Court have accepted and declared the ownership of the brand name to the family or to each of the applicant, therefore the benefit ought to have been extended - There can be more than one owner of the brand name - The appellants also pointed out that the original adjudicating authority ignored the clarification issued by C.B.E. & C. bearing No. 52/52/94 wherein it was clarified that unless the brand is proved to have been owned by some other person, the benefit cannot be denied. They also contended that the demand is barred by limitation and imposition of penalties and redemption fine on the seized goods are not sustainable. Extended Time-Limit - In terms of rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 no responsibility was cast on the appellants to declare the trade name or brand name affixed by them on their goods - the extended period of limitation was not invocable in the case - The order confirming the demand for the period beyond six months under the proviso to Section 11A of Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 was not sustainable and the differential duty if any was to be recovered only in respect of clearances during the normal period of limitation i.e. 6 months from the date of show cause notice. Stay Application - Financial Hardship - Prima facie strong case both factually and legally in favour of the appellants - Their financial condition was very bad primarily due to the recession in the market and produced copy of the balance sheet and profit and loss account for the year ended 31-3-2011 - Assessee had very strong legal case stay may be granted waiving any pre-deposit - stay granted.
|