Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 388 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of SSI Exemption - Use of third party brand name - Held that:- The duty demand for the period from October 1994 to December 1994 is ₹ 3,78,241/- and the remaining amount of ₹ 62,897/- out of the total duty demand of ₹ 4,41,138/- pertains to January-March 1994 period 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 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 it is the appellant who is the owner of the brand name. No appeal has been filed by the Department against this order. Moreover, in terms of the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, the appellant is the assignee of the brand name, in question, on transfer from M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd. and if this is so, they would be eligible for the SSI exemption. In view of this, the impugned order is not sustainable. The same is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
|