9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hetty, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri. S. Hasija, Ld. Supdt. (AR) for the Revenue, we find that M/s.Automats (India) is engaged in the manufacture of Beverage Vending Machines under the brand name of "Hot Pot" and "Automats". As per the Revenue, both the said brand names are owned by M/s.Asra and as such M/s.Automats (India) is not entitled to avail the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28/02/1993 inasmuch as they are using the brand names of another person. It may be mentioned here that Shri Sudhir Malhotra is a Proprietor of M/s.Asra and is the active partner in M/s.Automats (India). Based upon the above, Revenue initiated proceedings against M/s.Automats (India) by issuing number of show-cause notices propo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uses of the SSI exemption notification in question and the assignee of the brand name would be hit by the bar of such use and the benefit of notification would not be available to him. 4. Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant fairly concedes that in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the ground of permission of M/s.Asra to use the brand name will not make M/s.Automats (India) entitled to the benefit of SSI notification. However, he submits that even as per the Revenue, the brand name was owned by M/s.Asra, which is a proprietary unit of Shri Sudhir Malhotra. Admittedly, Shri Sudhir Malhotra is a partner in M/s.Automats (India). He submits that such use of brand name owned by an individual, who is a partner of a partners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty for fresh decision in the light of the above referred judgments. Needless to say that the appellant would be given an opportunity to put forth their defence. We make it clear that we have not gone to the merits of the case to express any opinion on the same. As regards the Revenue's appeal though we find that the left out show-cause notice could have been adjudicated by the Commissioner by a separate subsequent order and there were no need for the Revenue to file an appeal against the order, which has not adjudicated the 11th show-cause notice, but as the matter is being remand to the adjudicating authority, he would also take the left out show cause notice for consideration while deciding the other remanded matters. 7. In view of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
