GST Helpdesk   Subscription   Demo   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 1279 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

2016 (5) TMI 1279 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH - TMI - SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - entitlement - use of brand name 'SAGAR' of another person - Held that:- by relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Novel Tronic Corporation [2008 (8) TMI 710 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], the appellant is the owner of brand name 'SAGAR' as the appellant was using the said brand name prior to M/s Sagar Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd (another person). Therefore, the appellant is entitled to avai .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt is in appeal against the impugned order confirming the demand of duty of ₹ 62,66,166/- alongwith interest and equivalent amount of penalty for the period 01.01.2007 to 08.03.2011. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant namely M/s Sagar Engineering Works Unit No. 1 is located at 419, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana are engaged in the manufacture of Planner & Plano Milling Machines. They are clearing that goods by availing benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

o. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 on the ground that the appellant is using brand name of the other person, therefore they are not entitled for exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. The show cause notice was adjudicated and it was held that as the brand name was registered in the name of Sagar Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 05.02.1996 and the appellant is using the same brand name, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to avail benefit of exemption under Notification No. 08 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

me since then and the brand name in question is registered in the name of M/s Sagar Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f 05.02.1996 the date when M/s SMT started using the said brand name. It is contention of the Ld. Counsel that the appellant is using this brand name prior to the use by M/s SMT i.e. prior to 05.02.1996 (third party) therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. To support this contention, he relied on the decision of N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Apex Court in the case of Kali Aerated Water Works 2015(320) ELT 692 (SC). 5. On the other hand, the Ld. AR submits that the facts are slightly different as Sh. Amarjit Singh Director of M/s SMT has stated in the statement that the said brand name is being used since 1976 when their company was incorporated and they have not permitted any other person to use the said brand name. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled for exemption. 6. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 7. It is .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

name of M/s Sagar Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f 05.02.1996. This fact has not been denied by Sh. Amarjit Singh Director of the M/s SMT. As per the invoice shown by the appellant; they were using this brand name prior to 05.02.1996. We also take note of the fact that initially the brand in question was registered in the name of the father of the appellant and is registered in the name of other independent parties, therefore, the brand in question is a common brand, hence nobody can claim the sol .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sue of denial of exemption under Notification before this Tribunal on the ground that the assessee was using brand name from 1993 where is the registered owner of said brand name which came into existence only in 1995. In these facts, this tribunal has observed as under: 2. After examining the records and hearing the learned JDR, we note that the appellate Commissioner's finding that the brand names in question belonged to the buyer is under challenge. The goods were cleared under two brand .....

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