TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brand name of another firm where he is a Director, Partner or Proprietor then it cannot be said that the assessee is using the brand name of other person - the appellants are entitled to avail benefit of exemption N/N. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 as they are using their own brand name. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - on 31.05.1995 the registration certificate was amended with effect from 01.04.1995 wherein it was in the knowledge of the Revenue that appellants are using the brand name RIAT which is owned by M/s. RMT. Therefore, it cannot be held that appellant has suppressed any material fact from the Revenue to invoke extended period of limitation - extended period cannot be invoked. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed was also executed by RMT in favour of the appellant transferring the brand name to them. After investigation, show cause notice dated 05.05.2008 was issued to the appellants to deny the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003-CE (ibid), on the premise that as the appellant are using the brand name of M/s. RMT therefore, they are not entitled to avail the benefit of the above said notification. Therefore, demands of duty was proposed for the period 2003 to2008, for the clearances made by the appellant without payment of duty. The matter was adjudicated, demand of duty along with interest was confirmed by denying the benefit of exemption notification and penalties were also imposed on both the appellants. Aggrieved from the said order, the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT along with RT-12 returns. He further submits that as their turn-over remains below the exemption limit therefore, on 30.11.2000, they surrendered the registration certificate considering the fact that they are using their own brand name RIAT for their clearances. It is also his contention that as for abundant precaution, they got the assigning deed in their favour dated 17.06.2006, issued by M/s. RMT for using the above said brand name and the same was effective from 17.06.2006. Therefore, extended period of limitation cannot be invoked against them. Further, for the period within limit, they were the brand owner of the said brand name. Therefore, the proceedings against the appellants are not sustainable. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the brand name of another firm where he is a Director, Partner or Proprietor then it cannot be said that the assessee is using the brand name of other person. The said view of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court. In that circumstance, in this case, the facts stated hereinabove have not been disputed and therefore, we hold that ld. adjudicating authority has rightly allowed the benefit of exemption notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 to the respondent. Consequently, no duty demand is sustainable against the respondent. In view of the above, on merits, we hold that the appellants are entitled to avail benefit of exemption Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 as they are using their own brand name. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
