9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 537 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption Notification - Revenue found that the party was using the brand name ZOLOTO-m on the Pipe Fittings manufactured by them under the SSI exemption notification in operation at the relevant time - Held that - The respondent having been granted registration which had to be made effective from the date of application, the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the Notification - both the parties using the brand name ZOLOTO-m and ZOLOTO fall under the jurisdiction of same Central Excise Division, the department was fully aware about the use of brand name by both the parties and hence, there was no suppression of facts. Time-Barred Demand - Held that - The demand had to be treated as time-barred inasmuch as the assessee had filed the declaration claiming the benefit of the Notification and mentioning the use of brand trade name Zoloto-M - The respondents have shown the fact of use of said brand name in their declaration as also the fact of availment of SSI exemption Notification - Having placed the entire facts before the Revenue, they cannot be held guilty of any suppression or mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty - The appellate authority had rightly denied the extended period of limitation to the Revenue Decided against the revenue.
Issues:
1. Appeal maintainability based on authorization letter signing. 2. Eligibility for SSI exemption due to brand name usage. 3. Date of applicability for registration and exemption benefits. 4. Time-barred demand and suppression of facts. Issue 1: Appeal Maintainability The respondent's advocate argued on the appeal's maintainability due to the authorization letter not being signed by the Committee of Commissioners but by the Commissioner. The Tribunal decided to proceed with the appeal on merits, citing a precedent decision covering the issue. Issue 2: Eligibility for SSI Exemption The case involved the use of the brand name "ZOLOTO-m" by the respondent on Pipe Fittings, leading to a dispute regarding eligibility for SSI exemption. The Central Excise staff seized goods bearing this brand name, alleging an attempt to benefit from another person's established brand name. The Commissioner (Appeals) later found that the brand name "ZOLOTO-m" was registered under the Trade Marks Act, making the respondent eligible for exemption under specific notifications. Issue 3: Date of Applicability for Benefits A crucial aspect was the date of applicability for registration and exemption benefits. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the respondent's registration for the brand name "ZOLOTO-m" related back to the date of application, allowing them to avail exemption benefits from that earlier date despite the delayed issuance of the registration certificate. Issue 4: Time-Barred Demand and Suppression of Facts The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the demand time-barred as the respondent had filed a declaration claiming exemption and disclosed the use of the brand name "ZOLOTO-m." The Revenue alleged suppression due to non-disclosure of the brand name's registration status. However, the Tribunal found that the respondent had provided all relevant information to the Revenue, negating any suppression or misstatement with intent to evade duty payment, leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the respondent's entitlement to SSI exemption benefits based on the registration of the brand name "ZOLOTO-m" and the absence of suppression of facts regarding the brand name usage and exemption claim.
|
