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

2016 (12) TMI 1454 - CESTAT BANGALORE

2016 (12) TMI 1454 - CESTAT BANGALORE - TMI - SSI exemption - use of brand name and the logo belonging to K. Dhandapani and Co., who were claimed to be traders and not manufacturers, by appellant - Held that: - the appellants have used the brand name and the logo belonging to K. Dhandapani and Co. and they have not declared the same in their classification and therefore they have concealed the factual information from the department and therefore they are not entitle to SSI exemption. - Impo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ocuments and tentatively held the view that the use of name Dhandapani and the logo belonging to K. Dhandapani & Co. Ltd. would amount to use of brand name of another company and hence benefit of SSI exemption would not be available. Thereafter a show-cause notice dated 12.06.2001 was issued alleging contravention of provision of Rule 9(1), 49, 54, 173B, 173C, 173F, 209A read with proviso to Section 11A (1) of Central Excise Act 1944 for the period July 97 to July 2000 seeking to demand diff .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ermitted 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 Add .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d under Section 11AB are paid by the assessee within 30 days of communication of this order, the penalty imposed under Section 11AC shall be reduced to 25% of the duty demanded under Section 11A provided the reduced penalty is also paid within the period of 30 days. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order of the lower authority and also imposed equal penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed the prese .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f brand name in favour of the appellant. The Commissioner has also failed to consider that M/s. Dhandapani & Co. are not engaged in the manufacture 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 submitt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

001 (129) E.L.T. 730 (Tri.-Del.)] c) CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Fine Industries [2002 (146) E.L.T. 53 (Tri.-LB)] d) CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Bhalla Enterprises [2004 (173) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.)] e) Janta Rubber Distributors Vs. CCE, Calcutta [2000 (125) E.L.T. 671 (Tri.)] f) Namtech Systems Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi [2000 (115) E.L.T. 238 (Tri.)] g) Mentha & Allied Products Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut [2004 (167) E.L.T. 494 (S.C)] h) CCE, Trichy Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. [2005 (183) E.L.T. 123 (S.C.)] 4. On the oth .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ants have been enjoying the benefit of SSI exemption by using the brand name and the logo which does not belong to them. In support of his submission, the learned AR relied upon the following authorities: a) CCE, Delhi Vs. ACE Auto Comp. Ltd. [2011 (263) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)] In this case the Hon ble Supreme Court held that use of brand name 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. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Court held that SSI exemption - Brand name of another person - unregistered and not in respect of any particular goods - on use of such a brand, assessee would not be entitle to benefit of exemption. 5. After considering the submissions of both the parties, we find that the appellants have used the brand name and the logo belonging to K. Dhandapani and Co. and they have not declared the same in their classification and therefore they have concealed the factual information from the department and .....

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