TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed on their goods a brand name ("PIONEER") which was registered in the name of another party, namely, M/s. Coimbatore Pioneer Textile Mills Ltd., who were using the said brand name on their products. The assessee was using the same brand name on Dish Antenna. It was held by the adjudicating Authority that the clearances of branded Dish Antenna effected by the assessee during the period of dispute were hit by the bar contained in para-7 of the above Notification, which stipulated that the benefit of exemption under the Notification was not available to a manufacturer who used on his own goods any brand name which belonged to another person who was not entitled to the benefit of the Notification. The textile company, which was registered own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the brand name on goods different from his. This is abundantly clear from the following decisions : - 1. Commissioner v. Mahaan Dairies - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) 2. Commissioner v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) 3. Commissioner v. Bhalla Enterprises - 2004 (173) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.) Ld. Counsel has sought to draw support from certain observations contained in Bhalla Enterprises (supra), but we are not impressed. The tenor of all these decisions is clear to the effect that, where an SSI unit is using a brand name which belongs to another person, who is not entitled to SSI benefit, the former is not entitled to the benefit irrespective of whether the two parties are using the brand name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Laboratories (I) Pvt. Ltd. Ors., 2005 (186) E.L.T. 427 (T) = 2005 (118) E.C.R. 92 (Tri-Delhi), wherein it was held that where there were conflicting decisions of the Tribunal, the extended period of limitation was not invocable for demanding duty. We have examined these submissions also. It is noticed that, in the show cause notice, two facts were stated in the context of invoking the extended period of limitation against the assessee. Firstly, it was alleged that the assessee had not disclosed the fact that erection and commissioning charges were not included in the assessable value. Secondly, they had not disclosed the fact that they were using the brand name of another person on their goods. We have already found that erection and comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
