9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (7) TMI 474 - AT - Central ExciseBrand name - SSI Exemption - The Joint Commissioner had denied the SSI benefit under Notification No. 8/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002 to the appellants on the ground that the brand name GLACIER used by the appellants belongs to another person - imposed duty and penalty - The appellants themselve have admitted that the brand name used by the appellants was owned by some other person, the question of Department leading any further evidence in this regard does not arise unless the assessee either disputes the statement in that regard or place before the authority any material which would reveal the statement to be either incorrect or doubtfu - It is difficult to accept the contention on behalf of the appellants that the Department was unable to produce evidence regarding the fact that the said brand name belonged to some other person - Question of leading evidence of a undisputed fact does not arise. In the returns filed during the relevant period by the appellants, the same disclosed that the brand name belonged to the appellants. The fact that it belonged to some other person was revealed for the first time on 19-6-2007 - A show cause notice was issued on 5-10-2007. Obviously therefore, the Department was entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation as the relevant fact was suppressed from the Department till June, 2007. - Hence, the appeal is fails and is dismissed.
Issues:
Challenge to order denying SSI benefit under Notification No. 8/2002-C.E. due to brand name ownership dispute. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to Commissioner (Appeals) order The appellants contested the order dated 14-12-2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Faridabad, which dismissed their appeal against the Adjudicating Authority's decision. The Joint Commissioner, Faridabad, had denied the SSI benefit under Notification No. 8/2002-C.E. to the appellants due to a brand name ownership dispute, imposing duty, interest, and penalties. Issue 2: Brand Name Ownership Dispute The appellants were involved in manufacturing packaged drinking water under the brand name GLACIER. The dispute arose when it was alleged that the brand name GLACIER belonged to another person, leading to the denial of SSI exemption. The Department's investigation revealed that the brand name GLACIER was owned by a different entity, not the appellants, during the relevant period. Issue 3: Legal Arguments The appellants argued that no substantial investigation was conducted to prove the ownership dispute of the brand name GLACIER. They cited Circular No. 52/52/94-CX and a Tribunal decision to support their claim. The appellants contended that there was no suppression of facts, and the extended period of limitation invoked by the Department was unjustified. Issue 4: Department's Position The Department maintained that the brand name GLACIER belonging to another person was admitted by Shri Mohit Jain in his statement, leading to the initiation of proceedings. They argued that the invocation of the extended period for limitation was valid, as the ownership discrepancy was only revealed in 2007. Issue 5: Compliance with SSI Benefit Conditions To avail the SSI benefit, the appellants needed to satisfy the conditions under the Notification, including disclosing that the brand name used did not belong to another person. The Department's investigation and statements revealed that the brand name GLACIER was owned by a different entity, not the appellants, during the relevant period. Issue 6: Conclusion The Tribunal found that the appellants admitted that the brand name belonged to another person during the relevant period, and no evidence was presented to dispute this fact. The Department was entitled to invoke the extended period of limitation as the ownership discrepancy was only revealed later. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellants' arguments based on the Circular and Tribunal decision were deemed unhelpful. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of SSI benefit to the appellants due to the brand name ownership dispute, emphasizing the importance of compliance with disclosure requirements and the Department's right to invoke the extended period of limitation in cases of suppressed facts.
|
