9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Vs. Meyer Health Care Pvt. Ltd. and others. The Department has also filed Appeal No. E/727/2003 against Order-in-Original No.94/2003 dated 24/04/2003 in which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) extended the benefit of the SSI exemption to Meyer Health Care for the subsequent period 1998 to March 2001, M/s. Meyer Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. (MHPL) is engaged in the manufacture of various pharmaceutical goods falling under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 and was availing benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No.16/97 during the disputed period i.e. January to September 1998 and successor notifications, The dispute in the present case is with reference to the product 'Fevril syrup' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tered into between the respondent and the owner of the trade mark on 6-10-1998 would also be applicable to the case in hand and would date back prior to a period of 1998 to be considered and decided by the Tribunal by recording an effective and reasoned decision. Therefore, we set aside the order of the Tribunal to the aforesaid extent and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for de novo consideration of the aforesaid issue as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. 6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 7. In view of the aforesaid order, IAs are also disposed of. We make it clear that this order is confined only to the aforesaid issue and nothing more at this stage." 2. With the above background ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition to the assignment of brand name, the adjudicating authority has recorded that M/s. Meyer Organics Health Care were also using a monogram with the symbol 'Omega' which belongs to M/s. Omega Meyer Ltd., Jersey British (Isles). By using the monogram belonging to another person M/s. Meyer Healthcare becomes not entitled to the SSI benefit. He further referred that the existence of the Assignment Agreement dated 25.08.1997 was very much within the knowledge of the Department and has been referred to by the adjudicating authority in para 15 of the impugned Order-in-Original. 5. After hearing both sides and perusal of record, we note that it is settled position of law that once the brand name has been assigned in favour of a perso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s granted such assignment but the demand raised is for the period prior to this date i.e. January to September 1998. Upon perusal of the Assignment Agreement dated 06.10.1998, we notice that in this Agreement there is a reference to the earlier agreement dated 25.08.1997. Further on perusal of a copy of the earlier assignment deed which is on record, we note that the same brand name stands assigned right from 25.08.1997 in favour of M/s Meyer Health Care Pvt. Ltd. Such being the case M/s. Meyer Health Care Pvt. Ltd. will be entitled to the SSI exemption during the disputed period and we find no reason to sustain the impugned order passed in this regard. 6. Turning to the Department Appeal, pertaining to the subsequent period, we note that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
