Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 512 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (6) TMI 512 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - SSI Exemption - use of Brand/Trade mark or others - Exemption available to small scale units under exemption notification no. 08/2003 dated 1.3.2003 - denial of exemption as assessee used somebody’s else brand name in the excisable goods cleared - CIT(A) allowed the claim - Held that:- There is no dispute regarding the ownership of the trade mark “Superfix” which was assigned in the name of the Appellants by a deed of assignment dated 18.11.05 by the b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the deed of assignment.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Primella Sanitary Products (2005 (4) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ) held that as long as assignment stands the assessee using the brand name is eligible for the benefit of SSI exemption notification. - Decided against revenue - Excise Appeal No.E/559/2008-EX(DB) - Final Order No. 51849/2016 - Dated:- 13-5-2016 - SMT. ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND SHRI B. RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e products bearing brand name SUPERFIX, which according to the Revenue, does not belong to the respondents. The Original Adjudicating Authority vide his order dated 15.11.2007 confirmed the demand of ₹ 2,07,205/- and imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,000/- on the respondent. On appeal vide the impugned order, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original order and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by this, Revenue is in appeal. 2. Ld. AR submitted that the application for registration of t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Tribunal s decision in the case of Tilrode Chem Pvt. Ltd. - 2007 (207) ELT 573 (Tribunal-Bang.). 4. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the said brand name was assigned to them by a Deed dated 8.11.2005 and where the rightful owners of the said brand name used the same in their products. He also contended that there is no evidence placed that the said brand name belongs to anybody else other than the respondent. He also contended that the fact they have applied for registration of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e for the claim of concession under the said notification. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) examined the issue in detail as under:- In this case, there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the trade mark Superfix which was assigned in the name of the Appellants by a deed of assignment dated 18.11.05 by the brand name owner M/s.Indofil Chemicals Co. Moreover, as rightly pointed out by the Appellants, registration of the trade mark/brand name with the trade mark authorities is not relevant for t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version