Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1258 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - use of Brand name - Clandestine removal - 4054 pieces of GLASSPOLL brand roofings - benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE - HELD THAT:- The issue now stands settled in terms of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the latest of which is CCE, BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. VETCARE ORGANICS PVT LTD [2015 (6) TMI 156 - SUPREME COURT]. It has been held in this case, involving Notification No. 1/93-CE, that permission to use and user on basis of such permission of brand name, does not make the user the owner of such brand name. The appellant firm is not eligible to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE, as held by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- During the material period and until the decision of the COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-I VERSUS MAHAAN DAIRIES [2004 (2) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] there were number of decisions of the Tribunal, including the decision of the COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH VERSUS FINE INDUSTRIES [2002 (10) TMI 114 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI], which had held that in a case like the instant case, the user of the brand name obtained upon permission, including assignment from the brand owner, was eligible to benefit under the pari materia Notification No. 175/86-CE, unless the specified goods on which the small scale manufacturer used brand name belonging to another person was identical to the goods of such other person and, therefore, the extended period of limitation contained in the Proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Act is not applicable. Clandestine removal - period April, 1998 to September 26, 1998 - HELD THAT:- In the absence of any official translation being brought on record, this dispute cannot be resolved. The employee, Shri Tapan Kumar Bose, is also no longer available as the firm has closed down its business as informed by the appellant’s counsel. Moreover, the matter relates to more than 20 years back. In such circumstances it is not possible to arrive at any conclusive finding on this issue. Appeal disposed off.
|