TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 927X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt. Change of management does not make in change of identity of the company. As regard private limited company it is the company who holds the identity and not share holders, therefore company remained intact irrespective of change of share holders. - In this position if the brand name were owned and used by the same company under the old management there is no need of transfer of brand name from old management to new management because brand name is not owned by the management but it is owned by the company only. - when brand names belong to company how it could be transferred from earlier shareholder to present shareholder. This finding of the Ld. Adjudicating authority is absurd and beyond common sense. In view of our discussion we are o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore it was contended that the appellant using the brand name of other person, hence not eligible for SSI Exemption under notification No. 8/99-CE dated 1/3/1999. A show cause notice dated 4/1/2002 was issued and same was adjudicated wherein the demand of excise duty amounting to ₹ 5,35,480/- was confirmed and equal amount of penalty under Section 11AC and interest under Section 11AB of Central Excise Act, 1944 was also demanded. In addition, penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs was imposed on Shri. Nitin Kankraj Sottany, Director/Manager of the appellant /company under Rule 209(A) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Aggrieved by the said order-in-original dated 30/6/2003, the respondent filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the same cannot be entertained at this stage. He submits that entire case made out by the Revenue on the admitted fact that the brand names were earlier used by the company belong to other management and since after change of management the brand name was not transferred therefore it was inferred that the brand name does not belong to the respondent. Ld. Counsel categorically pointed out findings of the order-in-original that the respondent did not produce any evidence regarding transfer of brand name from the earlier share holders to the present share holders of the company and therefore ownership of the said brand still lies with the earlier shareholders of the company. The whole case is based of this view, in the show cause notice as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by both the sides. 5. From the close reading of the show cause notice as well as adjudication order we find that whole basis of the case that the brand name in question were earlier used by same company under different management and thereafter due to change of management the brand name should have been transferred and in absence of that it cannot be said that brand name belong to the respondent. As far as this basis of demand, we completely disagree with the Revenue that admittedly there is no change in the identity of the company, it is only a change of management. Change of management does not make in change of identity of the company. As regard private limited company it is the company who holds the identity and not share holde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity, it is seen that the value of the goods cleared from the Appellants' unit during the period 14997-98 (From November 1997 to July 2001) had never exceeded the prescribed exemption limit provided under the exemption Notification. It has also not been placed on record by the department that the brand name used by the Appellants on their goods had actually been used by any other person on the same class of goods and also that the said brand name indicated a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of the that person. In any case when the appellants are contesting that the brand name used by them did not belong to any one, burden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly, Mysore Ply and Hit Play. Noticee did not produced any evidence regarding the transfer of brand name from earlier shareholder to the present shareholder of the company. Therefore I an inclined to held that the ownership of the said branch still lies with the earlier shareholder of the company i.e. management. From the above finding of the adjudicating authority we surprise to note that when brand names belong to company how it could be transferred from earlier shareholder to present shareholder. This finding of the Ld. Adjudicating authority is absurd and beyond common sense. In view of our discussion we are of the considered view that the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) is proper and legal which does not require any interfere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
