TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 727X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Rukmani Pakkwell Traders (2004 (2) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), will not carry their case any further, in as much as in that case; the registration was Brand in the name of more than one person. Registration with the Trade Mark Authority of the “Brand Name” in this case as reproduced herein is in the name of appellant. Accordingly when the “Brand Name” is in the name of appellant benefit of SSI exemption in accordance with law needs to be extended to appellant. Benefit of exemption allowed - Decided in favor of assessee. - E/1438/09-Mum - A/89457/16/EB - Dated:- 17-8-2016 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Shri C.J. Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri T.C. Nair, Advocate for Appellant Shri S. Ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginal before the Tribunal which was disposed of at the stay stage by way or remand to consider the issue of eligibility of SSI exemption notification as to the factory being falling within the definition of Rural Area under Notification No. 9/2004 and also to consider whether the Brand Name has been registered in the name of appellant. Against such an order, Revenue preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court and their Lordship by an order dated 27.08.2008 remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for denovo enquiry and decision on the point of limitation and also on the merits as directed by Tribunal in order dated 29.12.2006. The impugned order is in denovo proceedings wherein the adjudicating authority has co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the absence of suppression, mis-statement, etc. as SCNs were issued for earlier periods on the very same issue and, hence, the Dept. is well aware of entire activities of the Appellants at the time of issuance of first SCN itself. 6. That when the Appellants have manufactured the goods bearing their own brand name, the question of their suppressing the fact that they are manufacturing the goods bearing the brand name of any other person does not arise at all, as they have not manufactured their goods bearing the brand name of any other person; 7. That suppression of facts or mis-statement, etc. must be conscious and deliberate with an intention to evade payment of duty and mere omission, if any, to give correct information, cannot b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... incorrect. The area of Village Waliv is declared as General Industrial Zone as per CIDCO. He would submit that as regards the Brand used by the appellant, decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy Vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders [2004 (165) ELT 481 (S.C.) would apply as appellant using the Brand Name of another person that the goods manufactured by M/s Navin Bharat Industries Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant are different. 6. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 7. The issue involved in this case is regarding whether the appellant is eligible to avail the benefit of Small Scale Industry for the clearance made from their factory or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Bharat Industries Pvt. Ltd. which we reproduce It is visible clearly and seen by the naked eye that the Brand Name ; which is registered in the appellant s name definitely is different than the Trade Mark registered in the name of M/s Navin Bharat Industries Pvt. Ltd. On this point and merits itself, we find that the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside and we do so; as there being no dispute that appellant is using only the Trade Mark assigned their products. 10. The reliance placed by the learned Departmental Representative in the case of Rukmani Pakkwell Traders (supra), will not carry their case any further, in as much as in that case; the registration was Brand in the name of more than on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
