TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notification. Just because the said brand name Nitco which is owned by the appellant is being used by other companies, the appellant cannot be denied the benefit and also all other group companies who are using the said brand name Nitco are not availing the benefit of SSI exemption and are clearing their final products on payment of duty. Thus, impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed. - 3789 to 3790 of 2010 - 55836-55839/2013-EX(PB) - Dated:- 26-2-2013 - Mrs. Archana Wadhwa and Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri B.L. Narasimhan , Advocate For the Respondent: Smt Ranjana Jha, Authorized Representative (DR) JUDGEMENT Per. Archana Wadhwa:- The facts leading to these four appeals are, in brief, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/04 and 1/1/05 to 31/12/05 ; (b) imposition of penalty on the appellant firm under Section 11AC ; and (c) imposition of penalty on Shri Pawan Talwar under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 1.2 The above three show cause notices were adjudicated by Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi II vide order-in-original dated 31/8/09 by which (a) total duty demand of Rs. 30,96,867/- was confirmed against the appellant firm alongwith interest under Section 11AB ; (b) penalty of equal amount was imposed on the appellant firm under Section 11AC; and (c) penalty of Rs. 2,25,000/- was imposed on Shri Pawan Talwar under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 1.3 Appeals filed by the appellant firm and Shri Pawan Talwar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides we find that the allegation made in the show cause notice were in respect of clubbing the clearances of various units of the Talwar family. However, the adjudicating authority dropped the said allegation by observing that separate exemption limit is available to each unit and the other units being limited companies, their value of clearance cannot be clubbed with the value of clearances of the noticee for the purpose of computing the aggregate value of clearance for home consumption. However, he observed that in as much as the appellant was using the brand name NITCO that is also being used by other companies, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngement to claim tittle for the brand Nitco but I find that no such royalty agreements are in existence with other user of the brand Nitco among their group companies and nowhere the noticee has disputed this position. Accordingly, I observe that the brand name is being used by all their group companies and many of them have not claimed benefit of exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.200. I hold that each of the group company may be a different legal entity but none of them individually is the owner of brand Nitco as aforesaid. The clearance of other group companies bearing the brand name or trade name of another person which are ineligible for the grant of this exemption in terms of paragraph 4 are not required to be clubbed in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... son. However, he has not arrived at any finding as to who is that another person to whom the said brand Nitco belongs. 9. In fact we find that even subsequently as per the certificate given by the Trade Marks Authority, the registration of brand name Nitco in the appellants name stands extended by the authorities for a further period of ten years with renewal date as 13.2.2006. 10. We also further find that Commissioner (Appeals) has also not denied the fact that the brand name Nitco is owned by the appellant but he observed as under:- Now coming to the issue of brand name Nitco as owned by the appellant and purported to be used by other companies and findings of the adjudicating authority with reference to Tribunal s decided in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
