TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 942X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the benefit of SSI exemption. The said show cause notice was issued on the ground that the respondents were found using brand name RATTAN which was a registered name of M/s. Rattan Hammers since 1989. The Commissioner by the impugned order has held that the brand name RATTAN was registered on 29-8-1997 in the name of M/s. Rattan Hammers with effect from 13-3-1989. It was registered in the name of the respondents on 21-11-2005 with effect from 1-11-1996. The Commissioner has further held that since the respondents duly got the brand name RATTAN registered in their name, it appears that they had followed the proper procedure. It has been further observed that the contention of the respondent that RATTAN has been registered as their brand name since 1996, the same goes in their favour and the respondents being co-owner of the brand RATTAN did not indulge in an intentional act to avail benefits of the goodwill of others. Further, once the brand name is registered in the name of the assessee, it cannot be said that they had used the brand name of others. Having held so, the Commissioner has dropped the proceedings. 4. Learned Commissioner has also held that the assessee had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the very fact that the respondents were granted registration of the brand name RATTAN with effect from 1996 though certificate in that regard was granted in 21-11-2005, the same clearly discloses that the use of brand name was not in relation to any brand name or trade name belonging to others but it lawfully belonged to the respondents themselves. Once the ownership of the brand name was conferred by the competent authority, there was no scope for the Excise authorities to doubt about the right of the respondents to avail the benefit under SSI exemption. As regards the bar of limitation, he submitted that the finding arrived at by the learned Commissioner is clearly borne out from the record and it was within the knowledge of the Department pursuant to the declaration filed by the respondents regarding the use of the brand name RATTAN and hence there was no scope for the Central Excise Department for invoking the extended period of limitation. He further submitted that at this stage, there is no order adverse to the interest of the respondents so as to justify withholding of the amount Rs. 5 lakhs deposited by the respondents in the course of proceeding before the adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appliances, are cleared for use as original equipment in the manufacture of the said machinery or equipment or appliances by following the procedure laid down in the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 : Provided that manufacturers, whose aggregate value of clearances of the specified goods for use as original equipment does not exceed rupees one hundred lakhs in the financial year 2002-2003 as calculated in the manner specified in paragraph 1, may submit a declaration regarding such use instead of following the procedure laid down in the said Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001; (b) where the specified goods bear a brand name or trade name of - (i) the Khadi and Village Industries Commission; or (ii) a State Khadi and Village Industry Board; or (iii) the National Small Industries Corporation; or (iv) a State Small Industries Development Corporation; or (v) a State Small Industries Corporation; (c) where the specified goods are manufactured in a factory located in a rural area . 11. A plain rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 13. As regards the bar of limitation, undisputedly, the finding arrived at by the Commissioner reads thus : The notice in their reply to the show cause notice have placed on record a copy of the declaration under Rule 173-B filed by them with effect from 1-7-97. I observe that the noticee has specifically mentioned in their declaration that they were using brand RATTAN .The declaration has been duly verified and found in order by the jurisdictional Sector Officer and Range Officer of (Central Excise Range-VII, Ludhiana) on 14-7-97. It means that the fact of noticee using RATTAN form the Central Excise authorities. Now the Central Excise department cannot claim that the facts were concealed by the noticee and were not in the knowledge of the department. In that case, I observe that under the aforesaid circumstances, invoking provisions of extended period under Section 11A(1) is not tenable. 14. Apparently, it discloses that the finding on the issue about invocation of extended period of limitation was on the basis of declaration filed under Rule 173-B and the notings thereon by the Sector Officer and the Range Officer. The issue in relation to the applicability of Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
