TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 99X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g up the second issue first. I find that this Tribunal in Apex Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner, reported in 2004 (60) RLT 64 has already held that the extended time-limit is not invokable if there are conflicting judgments. In this context, it is relevant to note that both my learned brothers have returned a unanimous verdict of withdrawal of penalty against the assessee, having observed the existence of such conflicting pronouncements. If Tribunals and other judicial fora could be divided on an issue, despite the ready availability of well stocked libraries of law and cerebral counsels at their disposal, how could the decision taken by a layman assessee of a small scale outfit could be treated as harbouring mala fide particularl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... = 2007 (7) S.T.R. 367 (Tribunal) = 2005 (70) R.L.T. 259 (CESTAT-Ban.) ( Brand name not owned by any particular person - exemption available ). (ii) Ample Industries Anr. v. C.C.E., Rajkot - 2007 (80) R.L.T. 293 (CESTAT-Ahbad.) ( No evidence of brand name being owned by a particular person-benefit on notification not deniable ). (iii) C.C.E., Cochin v. Geo Engineering Works - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 463 (Tri.-Bang.) ( It cannot be assumed that impugned brand name used by assessee belonged to another person, and benefit of exemption cannot be denied on such assumption ). (iv) Sujaya Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Belgaum - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 370 (Tri-Bang.) ( Burden of proof to show that the term used is a brand name lies on Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies that there was no such intention or that the user of the brand name was entirely fortuitous and could not on a fair appraisal of the marks indicate any such connection, it would he entitled to the benefit of exemption. An assessee would also be entitled to the benefit of the exemption if the brand name belongs to the assessee himself although someone else may be equally entitled to such name" 3.5 The learned authorized representative for the department states that the brand name "National" is an international and reputed brand name and there is no need to identify any person to whom such a brand name belongs to, as it is well known that "National" is an international brand name. He relies upon this Tribunal's larger bench decision i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
