Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ludhiana Versus M/s. Basant Presses (India)

2017 (6) TMI 805 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - Revenue was of the view that trade mark Basant is owned by M/s. Basant Mechanical Works, Ludhiana and the respondent is not entitled to used the brand name of other firm if they are availing benefit of SSI N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - Held that: - the respondent is a proprietary ship concern, who is using the brand name of a partnership concern, where the proprietor of the respondent firm is a partner - the fact .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri G.M. Sharma, AR for the Appellant - Revenue Shri Vikrant Kackria, advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the adjudicating authority granted benefit of SSI Exemption Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 to the respondent. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Power Press and putting brand name Basant thereon. Intelligence was gathered by t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n detail and by observing that brand name Basant is owned by M/s. Basant Mechanical Works where the proprietor of the respondent firm is a partner. Therefore, in that circumstance, he observed that the respondent is not using the brand name of others and relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Elex Industries Vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2003 (158) ELT 602 (Tri. Del.) allowed the benefit of exemption notification. Aggrieved from the said order, Revenue is before us. 3. The contention of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(Tri. Mumbai) and Royal Springs Vs. CCE, New Delhi - 2002 (146) ELT 571 (Tri.-Delhi) which has been affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court reported as 203 (152) ELT A263 (SC). 4. On the other hand, contention of the ld. AR is strongly opposed by the ld. Counsel. He submits that in the case of Elex Industries (supra), similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal and in that case, the proprietor of the firm was Director in the other firm whose brand name was being used by the appellant in that 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

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version