TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oprietor of Trade Mark “HARSH” as from 28.09.2000 by virtue of Deed of Assignment dt.31.03.2001. As the Trade Mark authority accepted that Respondent is proprietor of Trade Mark “HARSH” from 28.09.2000, then the demand of duty for the period 2003-04 to 2004-2005 on this ground is not sustainable. We have also noticed that the submissions of the Revenue before the Tribunal were refuted by the Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2005 on the ground the Respondents wrongly availed SSI exemption and cleared the goods bearing the brand name of the other person. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty alongwith interest and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order. 3. The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submits that the Respondents had not produc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs in his statement dt.12.01.2006, stated that M/s Harsh Traders entered into Deed of Assignment with M/s Harsh Industries to assign and use the trade mark in favour of the respondent company. So, the Respondent disclosed during investigation. It is further submitted that the Income Tax authority had accepted the revised return and the Central Excise department cannot go against the Respondent. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trade Mark authority accepted that Respondent is proprietor of Trade Mark HARSH from 28.09.2000, then the demand of duty for the period 2003-04 to 2004-2005 on this ground is not sustainable. We have also noticed that the submissions of the Revenue before the Tribunal were refuted by the Respondent. Hence, there is no need to discuss all these things. 6. In view of the above discussion, we d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
