TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n manufacturing excisable goods bearing brand name owned by another partnership firm, in which the proprietor of the first concern is a partner of the second. SSI exemption cannot be denied for the impugned period to PET for use of the brand name "CASCADE" - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/362 to 364/2008 - 42219-42221/2017 - Dated:- 11-8-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Ms. D.Naveena, Advocate For the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per Bench All the three appeals since involving identical issue they are taken up for common disposal. None appeared on behalf of the appellant (Sh.M.Manickam) in ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... either the Deed of assignment was registered nor the brand name CASCADE was re-registered with the statutory authority in the name of M/s.Pratheep Electro Technics. A no objection certificate to M/s. Cascade Electro Thermic (P) Ltd., for usage of the above brand name CASCADE was also issued by M/s.Swarna Steel Works on 02.04.1990. Subsequently, the brand name was assigned to M/s.Cascade Electro Thermic (P) Ltd., Coimbatore with effect from 01.04.1999 by way of Deed of Assignment for a consideration of ₹ 500/-, for the sale of Water Heaters under the brand name CASCADE for the territory covering India excluding the state of Tamilnadu. In this case also, either the deed of assignment or the brand name CASCADE was not re-registered with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d cum duty benefit which was not granted and for consequent reworking of penalty imposed. However, appeals filed by Alagesan and M. Manickam were dismissed. 4. On 11.08.2017, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant Ms. D. Naveena, Advocate made the following oral submissions which can be summarized as under (i) The brand name CASCADE was registered by Shri P. Alagesan, Shri A. Mahesh and Smt. A. Swarnalatha as co-owners of the brand name who are partners in Swarna Steel Works (SSW). (ii) P. Alagesan, Proprietor used it from 1.4.2002 and availed SSI Exemption Notification 8/2002-CE and 8/2003-CE. (iii) Benefit of SSI exemption is admissible to a proprietary concern manufacturing specific excisable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iew of the above the demand is not sustainable with effect from 25.06.2004. (vi) In respect of penalty against Shri P. Alagesan on the same grounds submitted in respect of PET, there can be no penalty imposable on him. 5. On the other hand, Ld. A.R. Shri A. Cletus supports the impugned order. He further submits that the said Assignment Deed is not a valid document since it does not appear to have been executed on the date claimed in the deed. Hence no legal rights can flow from it. The impugned order has correctly denied SSI exemption till 26.9.2005. The assignment deed cannot have retrospective operation from 12.02.2002. With respect to penalty imposed on the appellant (PET), Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly held that penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Co. Vs CC Chandigarh - 2003 (158) ELT 499 (Tri.-Del.) had laid down this ratio which was affirmed by Punjab and Haryana High Court as reported in 2010 (258) ELT A48 (P H). In the case of Elex Industries Vs CCE Chandigarh - 2003 (158) ELT 602 (Tri.-Del.), the same ratio was reiterated. 6.3 The Tribunal in the case of CCE Cochin Vs Mamma Products - 2004 (172) ELT 192 (Tri.-Bang.), inter alia, relying on Elex Industries decision (supra) held that in case of joint ownership of brand name, the SSI exemption cannot be denied. The above ratio was followed in Laxmi Industries Vs CCE Rajkot - 2013 (298) ELT 435 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 6.4 Following the ratio of these decisions, we hold that SSI exemption cannot be denied for the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
