9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while Appeal No. E/1035/05 is filed by the assessee. 3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are during the period 01.05.2001 to 30.06.2001, the appellant assessee who are manufacturers of readymade garments were visited by the officers of the Preventive Section and on withdrawal of certain documents it was noticed that there was contravention of provisions of law. Accordingly, the readymade garments valued at Rs. 12.66 lakhs were seized and after investigation, show-cause notice was issued. The show-cause notice interalia alleged that appellant M/s. Irony Clothing Pvt. Ltd. (ICPL) were using the Brand name "IRONY" and "Terminator". The lower authority was of the view that these Brand names belong to M/s. Venky & Co., hence appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered in the name of Venky and Co. was assigned to the appellant, subsequently held as the Brand name being someone else is incorrect. He would submit that in the case of Brand "terminator" is unable to make any submission of any assignment deed, as the Company is closed and not functioning. 4.1 As regards the clubbing of clearances it is his submission that "Venky and Co." is a sole proprietorship firm while "ICPL" are Pvt. Ltd. Co. situated geologically apart and hence the clearances of these two independent entitles cannot be clubbed and demands be raised on the ground that the appellant assessee in this case has exceeded the threshold limit as a SSI unit. He would rely upon the CBEC Circular No. 6/92 dated 29.05.1992 and more specifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... benefit of SSI exemption claimed by the appellant assessee on the clearances of this product are ineligible. It is his further submission that the assignment deed which has been entered into by Venky & Co. with appellant assessee is only for token consideration and the entire Brand was never sold. He would rely upon the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Akal Agricultural Industries - 2015 (321) ELT A206 (S.C.) for the proposition that the Brand name belonging to another person cannot be used and benefit of SSI exemption cannot be claimed. His further submission is that the Apex Court in the case of Vetcare Organics P. Ltd. - 2015 (321) ELT 384 (S.C.) has held that permission to use another Brand name does not amount that the user bec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on this point. It is undisputed that Venky & Co., is a sole proprietorship firm and ICPL is a Private Ltd. firm. CBEC vide Circular No. 6/92 dated 29.05.1992 referred the issue and a direction under Section 37-B was issued by the Board which reads as under:- "2. The Board had then felt the position as mentioned above including in respect of Notification No. CER-8(5)-CE dated 01.03.1956 was sufficient to deal with the interpretation under Notification No.176/77 dated 18.6.1977. Now in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the purpose of ensuring uniformity of levy of duties of excise, the Central Board of Excise and Customs have ordered that the general principles as mentioned above in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n may not arise. If one firm or individual owns several factories, he or it gets exemption only in respect of one individual owns several factories, he or it gets exemption only in respect of one lot and the manufacturer being only one entity there will be no question of distributing the exemption. (iv) Whether or not in the expression "by or on behalf of a manufacturer" the expression "from one or more factories" is added, the effect would be the same if the manufacturer is also the same. The expression "one or more factories" only further clarifies that whether the factory is one or more, it is the clearances by or on behalf of the same manufacturer which is to be taken into consideration for purposes of interpreting the exemption notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been registered in their name in the Certificate No. 300446 dated 31.05.2004 with effect from 24.11.1997. The Certificate was sent for verification and the Trade Marks Authority had certified the same as true. It is a settled law that unless a Trade Mark or Brand Name was registered in the name of the assessee, he was not entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption notification" It can be seen from the reproduced portion of the findings it is undisputed that the Brand name "Irony" was registered with the authorities in the name of Venky & Co. and from the deed of assignment it could be deduced that the said Brand name was assigned to the appellant ICPL in this case. Nothing is brought on record to show that even after assigning the Brand "Iro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
