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

2016 (9) TMI 727 - CESTAT MUMBAI

2016 (9) TMI 727 - CESTAT MUMBAI - TMI - 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 bei .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ngly 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. Hasija, Supdt. (A.R.) for Respondent ORDER This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 10/KLG/Th-II/2009 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t July, 2004 is wrong in as much as the Brand 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tification 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 orde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lied for registration of the said brand name ()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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on of the demand covered under both the SCNs 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the penalty imposed is not sustainable; 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

milar Brand Name on their products. The similarity 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

made from their factory or otherwise. It 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 .....

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