TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rgument if the assignment deed is accepted but the most important point is that if the brand name is assigned to the appellant, thereafter, the assignor has no locus standing, as regard the said brand name “SNT”, however, despite the assignment deed written the assignor M/s. Vidyut Motors PVT. Ltd applied for renewal of the trade mark “SNT” and the same was granted by the trade Mark registry. This makes it clear that the brand name “SNT” even after the period of assignment deed the trade mark “SNT” was owned by M/s. Vidyut Motors PVT. Ltd. It is only by an application made by the appellant to the trade mark registry on 06.12.2006, the appellant can be treated as owner of the brand name only w.e.f .06.12.2006. In this fact, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... k Registry in favour of the appellant on 04.09.2008. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand denying the exemption. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same discarding the assignment deed by pointing out various discrepancies in such assignment deed. 2. Shri. P.V. Sheth, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that though the brand name SNT was owned by Shri. Dilipbhai J Rathod of M/s. Vidyut Motors Pvt. Ltd but the same was assigned as per assignment deed executed on 08.04.1993, therefore, the appellant became owner of the said brand name from 08.04.1993. The period involved in the present case is March 2003 to February 2008. Therefore, as per assignment deed the appellant was entitled for SSI Exemption. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 20 (SC) IDEAL ROAD BUILDERS PVT LTD.- 2018 (12) GSTL 192 (TRI. MUM) NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANKI LTD. 2018 (15) GSTL 202 PRAVIN N. SHAH -2014 (305) ELT 480 (GUJ. HC) 3. On the other hand Shri. G. Jha, Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He submits that the assignment deed relied upon by the appellant appears to be a fake document. The same has been observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as pointed out various discrepancy, such as the same was not signed by the assignee date of assignment is not appearing. The claim of the appellant is regarding assignment deed also found false as despite the assignment deed in 1993 as claim by them, the assignor has applied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reated as owner of the brand name only w.e.f .06.12.2006. In this fact, we are of the view that the appellant is entitled for the SSI Exemption only for the period from 06.12.2006 onward. 6. As regard the submission of the Ld. Counsel on the issue of time bar we are of the view that though the appellant have declared the brand name SNT but the fact of ownership of brand name SNT was not disclosed , therefore, there is a clear mis-declaration and suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the demand cannot be held as time bar. 7. As per our above discussion since the appellant is entitled for SSI Exemption from 06.12.2006 onward, the adjudicating authority shall make a re-quantification of demand and pass a fres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
