9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (10) TMI 1674 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - brand name of others - Benefit of Exemption Notification No.8/2003-CE, dt.01.03.2003 - Imposition of interest and penalty - Held that - Department failed to establish the owner of the brand name of other person and no person came forward to claim the ownership of the brand name VIMCRO . It is seen from the record that the Director of M/s Vimal Microns Ltd claimed the ownership of the brand name in December 1995. The period of dispute in the present appeal is April 2004 to March 2005. We find that the Respondents had not seriously disputed this fact and therefore, the denial of SSI exemption on merit is justified. - cum-duty benefit and MODVAT Credit were not extended, while quantifying the demand of duty. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had not given detailed findings on the issue of limitation. The learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue submits that the Show Cause Notice dt.23.11.2005 is in respect of M/s Vimal Microns Ltd. In our considered view, the Commissioner (Appeals) should have examined the issue of limitation in detail and the other claims of the Respondent. - we uphold the demand of duty alongwith interest on merit. - Appeal disposed of.
Issues: Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order, Ownership of brand name "VIMCRO," Denial of SSI exemption, Barred by limitation, Cum-duty benefit and MODVAT Credit, Re-examination of grounds by Commissioner (Appeals).
Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad stemmed from the Revenue challenging the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that set aside the Adjudication order. The case involved the Respondents engaged in the manufacture of Coated and Uncoated Microns Minerals under specific classifications. The dispute arose regarding the use of the brand name "VIMCRO" owned by M/s Vimal Microns Ltd. The Adjudicating authority initially denied the benefit of Exemption Notification No.8/2003-CE and imposed penalties, which was overturned by the Commissioner (Appeals). Upon reviewing the impugned order, the Tribunal noted the main contention that the Department failed to establish the ownership of the brand name by any other person, especially since the Director of M/s Vimal Microns Ltd had claimed ownership of the brand name in 1995. The period in question for the appeal was from April 2004 to March 2005. The Tribunal found that the Respondents did not dispute this fact seriously, justifying the denial of SSI exemption on merit. The Respondent's consultant raised the issue of the demand being barred by limitation and the non-extension of cum-duty benefit and MODVAT Credit during the duty quantification process. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide detailed findings on the limitation issue. The Revenue's representative argued that the Show Cause Notice was specific to M/s Vimal Microns Ltd. The Tribunal opined that the Commissioner (Appeals) should have thoroughly examined the limitation issue and other claims by the Respondent. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the demand of duty with interest on merit. It directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to re-examine the grounds related to limitation, cum-duty price, and CENVAT Credit, emphasizing the need for a proper opportunity of hearing before any new order is passed. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
