Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Deco Tubes Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Thane-II

2016 (9) TMI 727 - CESTAT MUMBAI

SSI exemption - use of Brand Name belong to the assessee or not - similar “Brand Name” - Held that:- 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 onl .....

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 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. Hasija, Supdt. (A.R.) for Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 10/KLG/Th-II/2009 dated 30.09.2009 passed by the Commissio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rand Name was alleged to be the same as it was registered in the name of one M/s Navin Bharat Industries Pvt. Ltd., which incidently is a group company of M/s Choudhary International Group of which appellant is also a Group Company. The said M/s Navin Bharat Industries Pvt. Ltd. was using similar Brand Name for Electrical Conduit Pipes, Switches etc and which was registered with the Trade Mark Authority. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant for the demand of the duty liability and int .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ame ()Gprecision() with Trade Marks Registry on 2.12.1997 and registration was granted to them on 13.05.2008, effective 02.12.1997. Therefore, the goods manufactured by them were/are not bearing brand name of any other person to attract the mischief of Para 4 of Notn.No.8/2003-CE; 3. That thestyle of brand name (Gprecision) owned, used and registered in the name of M/s.Navin Bharat Industries/M/s.Choudhary International is different from thestyle of brand name ()Gprecision() owned, used and regi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

CNs is barred by limitation in 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 th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

9. That, in any case, penalty is not sustainable when issue relates to interpretation of law, based on the settled position of law on the issue; 4. Learned Counsel would draw our attention to the application made by them under Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and submitted an application was made for the Brand on 2nd December, 1997, which was approved as registered trade mark of the appellant by the order of the Registrar of Trade Mark dated 13.05.2008 but effective from 2nd December, 199 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imilarity on the Brand Name as ascertained from the facts the words are same, hence the benefit of exemption as claimed should not be extended to them. He would also submit that the claim of the appellant that their factory falls under Rural area is 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

is the case of Revenue that the Brand Name is used by the appellant is similar to the one allotted to one M/s Navin Bharat Industries Pvt. Ltd., hence the benefit of SSI is not available. 8. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of records, we find that the adjudicating authority has come to a conclusion that appellant is not eligible for a benefit of SSI notification as the Brand Name is not registered in the appellants name. 9. On perusal of the Certificate of Reg .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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