TMI Blog2011 (6) TMI 572X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 18/04/1994 amongst the members of the family and, therefore, they are not using the brand name of any other person – Held that:- as per the Memorandum of Understanding which relates to joint ownership of brand "RAVI MASALE", all the five members of the family are joint owners of the brand name "RAVI MASALE" and each one of them could use the brand name in their own manufacturing and trading activities. no infirmity in the impugned order. appeal filed by the department dismissed - E/2390/2003 - A/584/2011-WZB/C-II(EB) - Dated:- 22-6-2011 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Appearance: Shri Y.K.Agarwal, Authorised Representative (JDR) for the appellant Per: P.R. Chandrasekharan: This appeal is direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the members of the family and, therefore, they are not using the brand name of any other person. Since the turnover during the relevant period was less than the exemption limit of Rs. 30 lakhs, they are not liable to pay any excise duty. 2.3 The adjudicating authority did not accept the above plea and confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 91,314/- under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and also confirmed the demand for interest on the said duty amount under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act. The respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the lower appellate authority vide his order dated 27/05/2003 came to the conclusion that the brand name "RAVI" is owned by the members of the Jain family and as per t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndigarh vs. Fine Industries 2002 (146) ELT 53 have held, in similar circumstances, that the benefit of small-scale exemption cannot be denied. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. From the Memorandum of Understanding dated 18/04/1994, it is seen that the brand name "RAVI MASALE" is the family brand name of the Jain family consisting of father and four sons and the brand ownership is joint and each member of the family can use the brand for developing their own manufacturing and trading activities. 6. In view of the above position, the allegation of the department that the respondent was using the brand name of another person is not sustainable. Reliance placed by the department on the decision in the case of Kali A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
