9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (12) TMI 174 - AT - Central ExciseApplication for modification of stay order - SSI Exempted - Extended period of limitation - Whether the brand name RIAT can be said to be owned by the appellant company limitation Held that -In that order, the merits of the case and also the question of time bar, had been considered and it had been found that in respect of the same, the appellant have not been able to establish prima facie case. As discussed above, on the question as to whether the brand name RIAT can be said to be owned by the appellant company and on which the bulk of the duty demand of Rs. 59,49,884/- is based, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Prince Valves Industries v. CCE, Chandigarh (2006 (2) TMI 172 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) appears to be against the appellant. Even the appellant s plea that there is an assignment deed dated 17-6-2006 assigning the brand name RIAT to M/s. Riat Tools Pvt. Ltd. and, hence, for the period w.e.f. 17-6-2006 the SSI exemption cannot be denied to them also does not help them in view of the Tribunal s judgment in the case of VEE GEE Faucets P. Ltd. v. CC, Gurgaon (2010 (3) TMI 710 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) cited by the learned DR. The appellant s plea with regard to limitation had also been considered in the stay order dated 21-4-2011 and had not been found acceptable in the background of the fact that they had not intimated the department that the brand name RIAT being used on their goods does not belong to them and the same is still registered in the name of M/s. Riat Machine Tools. Miscellaneous application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for SSI exemption based on the ownership of the brand name 'RIAT'. 2. Alleged duty evasion by the appellant company. 3. Legitimacy of the stay order dated 21-4-2011 and its modification request. 4. Financial hardship claim by the appellant. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for SSI Exemption Based on Brand Name Ownership: The primary contention revolves around whether the appellant company, a private limited entity, is entitled to use the brand name 'RIAT' for availing SSI exemption. The department argues that 'RIAT' belongs to M/s. Riat Machine Tools, a partnership firm, and hence the appellant cannot claim SSI exemption. The appellant counters that the brand name should transfer automatically to them as the partnership firm was dissolved and converted into a private limited company with the same individuals as directors. The Tribunal referenced the case of Prince Valves Industry v. CCE, Chandigarh, where a new firm did not inherit the brand name from a dissolved partnership. The Tribunal found no evidence that the brand name 'RIAT' was legally transferred to the appellant company, thus rejecting their claim for SSI exemption. 2. Alleged Duty Evasion: The appellant was accused of evading duty amounting to Rs. 11,41,162/- by showing clearances in the names of M/s. Riat Machine Tools and M/s. Machinery Manufacturing Company, which allegedly had no manufacturing facilities. This part of the duty demand was not contested by the appellant. The remaining duty demand of Rs. 59,43,884/- was based on the use of the brand name 'RIAT', which the department claimed did not belong to the appellant. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not provide documents proving the transfer of the brand name and upheld the duty demand. 3. Legitimacy of the Stay Order and Modification Request: The appellant sought modification of the stay order dated 21-4-2011, arguing it was passed ex-parte and did not consider financial hardship. The Tribunal clarified that the stay order was not ex-parte as both parties had filed written submissions. The Tribunal also cited the case of CCE, Bangalore-III v. McDowell & Co. Ltd., which held that the Tribunal cannot review or modify its stay orders unless necessary for justice. The Tribunal found no new grounds for modifying the stay order, thus dismissing the appellant's request. 4. Financial Hardship Claim: The appellant claimed financial hardship, arguing that the requirement to pre-deposit Rs. 32,00,000/- in addition to Rs. 8,00,000/- already deposited was excessive. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence of financial hardship. The Tribunal emphasized that the merits of the case and the question of time bar had been considered in the stay order, and the appellant had not established a prima facie case. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the miscellaneous application for modification of the stay order dated 21-4-2011, extending the period for pre-deposit by eight weeks. The Tribunal upheld the original duty demand and penalties, emphasizing that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims regarding the brand name ownership, financial hardship, or procedural errors in the stay order.
|
