9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (4) TMI 55 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption Department contended that appellant used the brand name paras which belong to other person and accordingly liable to pay demand alongwith penalty and interest Held that appellant is not liable to pay duty interest and penalty
Issues:
Appeal against duty demand, interest, and penalty due to denial of Small Scale Exemption Notification on PVC Pipes manufactured and cleared by the appellants using the brand name "Paras" registered in the name of the Director. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai arose from the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad's order confirming a differential duty demand, interest, and penalty on the appellants for not receiving the benefit of the Small Scale Exemption Notification on PVC Pipes manufactured and cleared during 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. The denial was based on the use of the brand name "Paras," which was claimed to belong to another person, M/s. Bothara Foundry & Machine Works, a group company of Bothara Group Industries manufacturing Agricultural Implements. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the name "Paras" was registered in the individual name of Shri Manakchand Ghewarchand Bothara, who was the Director of the appellant company and a Partner in M/s. Bothara Foundry & Machine Works. Citing a precedent, the Tribunal referred to a decision in the case of Anil Pumps (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Panchkula, where it was held that assessees were eligible for the benefit of the Small Scale Industries (SSI) Notification when goods bore a brand name registered in the individual name of the Director, even if the Director was involved in another firm. In this case, since "Paras" was registered in the name of the Individual Director for specific products since 1995, it was determined that the appellants did not use a brand name belonging to another person, thereby entitling them to the SSI Exemption. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the duty demand and penalty could not be sustained based on the facts presented. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The decision was dictated and pronounced in court, bringing the matter to a close.
|
