9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1087X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... multaneous search at the factory of the M/s.Riat Machine Tools it was revealed that M/s.Riat Machine Tools was registered under Registration Certificate No.276200 for products namely Crank Shaft Grinding Machine and Centreless Grinding Machine in the M/s. Riat Machine Tools and the benefit of Notification No.8/2001-CE was not available to the respondents. A show cause notice was issued and the same was adjudicated, resulting in confirmation of demand of Rs. 30,80,723/- along with interest and imposition of penalty of equivalent amount under Section 11AC of the Act. The present respondents went in appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the adjudicating authority and allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved from the order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the agreement are as under: - 1. that Sh. Jaspal Singh as Karta of his HUF shall retire from the business Riat Machine Tools, G.T.Road, Ludhiana w.e.f.31.3.2002. 2. that the business of Riat Machine Tools shall be taken over by Sh. Navrattan Singh and Sh. Davinder Singh. 3. that Sh. Jaspal Singh shall take over the unit Riat International, Ludhiana as sole proprietor of the same. 4. that Sh. Jaspal Singh who is registered proprietor of the TM, RIAT (bearing a regn. No.276200 & 289977) shall have the legal right of exclusive ownership and seek registration of the TM, RIAT in respect of following machines only i.e. (i) Centreless Grinding Machines (ii) Surface Grinding Machines 5. that Sh. Navrattan Singh and Sh. Davinder S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment deed was specifically to transfer trade mark rights to Sh. Jaspal Singh. 6. We find that main ground of the department is that the above family settlement deed was not mentioned in show cause notice nor mentioned during three statements of the proprietor of the respondent but was produced afterwards before the adjudicating authority as well as first appellate authority. The argument of the Revenue is that the family settlement deed dated 11.4.2002 is an afterthought to cover all the issues. However, veracity of the document has not been questioned nor is there any allegation that the document is fake or forged. In these circumstances, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly relied upon the family settlement deed dated 11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
