9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd cables. The Departmental officers visited the appellant's factory on 29/01/2008 and found that they were availing SSI exemption in respect of the goods affixed with the brand name "Varuna" which did not belong to them and, as such, they were not eligible for SSI exemption in respect of such branded goods. During the search proceedings at the factory, certain documents were recovered and on perusal of a private diary recovered from the factory and on comparison of the details of clearances made by them as mentioned in the diary with the clearances reflected in the statutory records, was found that the goods involving duty of Rs. 1,47,851/- had been cleared without payment of duty. During physical verification of the stock, a stock of 8444 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enge in the present set of appeals. 5. Heard Ms. Rinki Arora, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant, Revenue represented by Shri V.B. Jain, learned Departmental Representative. 6. The learned Advocate submitted that the case of the Revenue is that the appellant will not be entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption in respect of the goods bearing the brand Varuna. She submitted that these goods were cleared by the appellant to the owner of the brand name M/s La-Gajjar Machineries Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad. She claimed that the owner of the brand name had authorized the appellant for manufacture of Varuna brand cables vide their letter dated 05/04/2006. She further submitted that their goods manufactured with the Varuna brand were cleared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Apex court has held that the SSI exemption to such user to the Notification No. 175/86-CE which denies the benefit of the SSI exemption in respect of goods bearing the name of another person. 8. The learned Advocate in a rebuttal submitted that before the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the position of law was that the once the brand name is assigned/authorized for use by the SSI unit, the unit will be entitled to the said benefit. She specifically referred to the decision in the case of CCE vs. Vikshara Trading Invest P. Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken such a view. In view of the new law pronounced in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2015 she claimed that the appellant was entitled to the bonafide belief that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. The Apex court has taken the view that when there was an assignment of trade mark to the SSI unit, the benefit will be available to the SSI unit even if such assignment was not registered. The other decisions of the Tribunal as well as the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana take similar views. However, situation has changed with the pronouncement of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore vs. Vetcare Organics P. Ltd. (supra); the appellant will not be entitled to the benefit of SSI benefit even if the brand name is assigned or authorized for use by the appellant. 12. In the light of all the case laws stated above, there are conflicting decisions of various Tribunals, High Courts and ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
