Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (12) TMI 1454

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cluded and the appellant is not required to pay the equal penalty - the appellant has deposited 14,17,640.28 before the issue of show-cause notice and the same was appropriated by the Order-in-Original and the learned Additional Commissioner has given them the opportunity to deposit the penalty of 25% along with interest within 30 days and the appellant has deposited the same within the stipulated period and therefore penalty not imposed. Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant. - E/713/2003-DB - Final Order No. 21122/2016 - Dated:- 10-11-2016 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member Shri S. Raghu, Advocate For the Appellant Shri N. Jagdish, AR For the Respondent ORD .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... traders and therefore the benefit of SSI exemption cannot be denied and further the appellant has been permitted to use the brand name of Dhandapani and Company which amounts to assignment of the brand name in favour of the appellant. The appellant also stated that under a bona fide belief, the appellant did not declare the brand name in their classification and they had no intention to suppress the fact to evade the payment of duty and thereafter immediately on their own voluntarily paid ₹ 14,79,640.28 on 17.07.2000 and 28.07.2000. After considering the submissions of the appellant, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of differential duty along with penalty and interest but did not impose any penalty on Shri T.N. Sree .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ture of capacitors and are only traders. He further submitted that the appellant is a manufacturing company and all the customers recognize the product as that manufactured by appellant only and the marking of logo is inconsequential in view of the definition of brand name and therefore the denial of exemption is unjust and illegal. He further submitted that the appellant under bona fide belief declared in their classification list that they did not use other brand name since K. Dhandapani Co. were not manufacturers and had assigned the use of brand name/logo to the appellants. Therefore they had no intention to suppress or evade payment of duty. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following authorities: a) Taj Serpent .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of another person is not eligible for SSI benefit, as long as the goods indicate connection between the goods manufactured and the company owning the Brand name. b) CCE, Chandigarh-II Vs. Bhalla Enterprises [2004 (173) E.L.T. 225 (S.C)] The Hon ble Supreme Court held that SSI exemption - Brand name of another person even if used in respect of goods of other class or kind, benefit of SSI exemption not available as object of the notification is to grant benefit only to those industries which otherwise do not have the advantage of other s brand name. c) CCE, Trichy Vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders [2004 (165) E.L.T. 481 (S.C)] In this case the Hon ble Supreme Court held that SSI exemption - Brand name of another person - unregister .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates