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

M/s. Riat Machine Tools Pvt. Limited, Shri Davinder Singh, Director Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ludhiana

2018 (1) TMI 422 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

SSI Exemption - N/N. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - denial on the premise that appellants are using the brand name of another person - Extended period of limitation - Held that: - M/s. RMT, was the owner of brand name RIAT and Shri Navrattan Singh and Shri Davinder Pal Singh were the partners of M/s. RMT. These two partners of M/s. RMT are the Directors of appellant firm - reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Ludhiana Versus M/s. Basant Presses (India) [2017 (6) TMI .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5 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 appellant. - Appeal No. E/792,793/2010-DB - Final Order No. 60019-60020 / 2018 - Dated:- 4-1-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Mem .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

two partners namely, Shri Davinder Pal Singh and Shri Navrattan Singh. They got registered the brand name as RIAT for the product manufactured by them with the trade mark registering authority, under the Trade Merchandise Act. With effect from 01.04.1995, the said business of partnership firm was taken over by M/s. Riat Machine Tools Pvt. Limited i.e. the present appellant who was having two Directors namely, Shri Navrattan Singh and Shri Davinder Pal Singh earlier the partners of M/s. RMT. The .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

enefit 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion cannot be denied to them. To support his contention, he relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Basant Presses (India) vide Final Order No. A/61066/2017. He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Elex Knitting Machinery Company vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2003 (158) ELT 499 (Tri. Del.), Elex Industries vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2003 (158) ELT 602 (Tri. Del.) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as well as by the Hon ble Apex .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and were filing the copy of invoices showing use of brand name RIAT 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 bra .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat; (a) Whether the appellants are entitled to avail benefit of exemption Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 using their own brand name or not? (b) Whether extended period limitation can be invoked. As regards issue (a) whether the appellants are entitled to avail benefit of exemption notification, we find that M/s. RMT, was the owner of brand name RIAT and Shri Navrattan Singh and Shri Davinder Pal Singh were the partners of M/s. RMT. These two partners of M/s. RMT are the Directors .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ary ship concern, who is using the brand name of a partnership concern, where the proprietor of the respondent firm is a partner. Therefore, the fact of this case are identical to the facts in the case of Elex Industries (supra), wherein this Tribunal has held that if the person who is using 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| 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