Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (6) TMI 322 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - use of brand name of others - N/N. 1/1993 dated 28.2.2003 - is ‘ALASKA’ brand is owned by entity other than the assessee appellant? - Held that: - during the relevant period, the brand ‘ALASKA’ was owned by the entity namely M/s. Vinko Auto Industries Ltd., Jalandhar, who is a different entity than the assessee-appellant, namely ALASKA Tyres Pvt. Ltd. When it is so, the appellants are not entitled to SSI benefit for the relevant period. The appellants have taken the plea that under the provisions of Trademark Act, 1999, such registration is to be treated as their brand retrospectively and therefore, they should be given the benefit of SSI exemption during the relevant period - Held that: - reliance was placed in the case of MEGHRAJ BISCUITS INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., UP [2007 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that issuance of registration certificate with retrospective effect from 30-9-91 will not tantamount to conferment of exemption benefit under the Excise Law once it is found that the appellants had wrongly used the trade mark of M/s. Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd. - the assessee- appellant is not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption during the said period, as during the said period, the brand name ‘ALASKA’ was owned by another party, namely, M/s. Vinko Auto Industries Ltd., Jalandhar. Penalty on Shri Ravi Gupta, who is director of the assessee appellant, u/r 209 A of CER, 1944 - Held that: - Shri Ravi Gupta was found to be instrumental in preparing the assignment deed in connivance with M/s. Vinko Auto Industries, in order to evade the duty of Central Excise. Thus there has been active involvement of appellant Shri Ravi Gupta in evasion of duty of Central Excise in the present proceedings making him liable to imposition of penalty under Rule 209 A of CER, 1944 - penalty upheld. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|