TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1362X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is differen entity - even after coming to know that the law does not permit them to take benefit of N/N. 08/2003, the appellant has not paid the duty of Central Excise confirmed against them. Therefore, their bonafides cannot be pronounced as beyond doubt - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - E/1719/2011-EX[DB] - Final Order No. 50748/2017 - Dated:- 8-2-2017 - Mr. Dr. Satish Chandra, President and Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Sh. T.R. Rustogi, Ld. Advocate for the appellant Sh. R.K. Majhi, Ld. AR for the respondent ORDER 1. M/s Palsons Automotive (P) Ltd. are in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal 130/132/2011 dated 31.03.2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al , though the brand name is registered in the name of Autolite India Ltd. , which is one of the group companies. ii . Though brand was registered in the name of Autolite India Ltd. it is used by all other group companies and it was permitted as their family business was being conducted through this brand name. iii . Each company of the family and brothers was using the said brand name as a matter of right. It was done as a Family Settlement . iv . The brand Autopal is the property of all the brothers, who owned different companies dealing in parts of motor vehicles. v . The demand is time barred as there is no suppression and clandestine removal of goods. vi . The appellant had bonofied belief that they were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h 4 and Explanation IX of Notification have been construed by this Court in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Rukhmani Pakkwell Traders , 2004 (165) E.L.T. 481; as also in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Mahaan Dairies, 2004 (166) E.L.T. 23. In both these decisions this Court held that Paragraph 4 read with Explanation IX of the notification could not be construed in the manner as contended by the assessees, namely, to make it necessary for the owner of the trade mark/trade name to use the goods in respect of the specified goods manufactured by the assessee. We see no reason to differ with the reasoning of this Court in the aforesaid decisions. Clause 4 of the Notification read with Explanation IX clearly debars those persons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elong to the appellant but belongs to another company. It makes no difference that M/s Autolite India Ltd. is a group company. In law it is differen entity. Further, even after coming to know that the law does not permit them to take benefit of Notification No. 08/2003 (supra), the appellant has not paid the duty of Central Excise confirmed against them. Therefore, their bonafides cannot be pronounced as beyond doubt. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the appellant had bonafide belief that they can freely use the brand name of another group company and can still take the benefit of SSI exemption notification No. 8/03-CE (supra). Further the ignorance of law cannot be an excuse as per ratio laid down in the case of CESC Ltd Vs. Dy.CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
