9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1362 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - use of brand name of others - The appellant is fixing the brand name Autopal on the said goods though the said brand name is registered in the name of another entity of their group companies which is known as Autolite India Ltd. - appellant claims that they were under bonafide beleif that the brand name can be used by them as M/s Autolite India Ltd. is a group company - Held that - When the appellant has not informed the department/revenue that they were using the brand name of other group company this is clearly a suppression of the fact - It makes no difference that M/s Autolite India Ltd. is a group company. In law it is differen entity - even after coming to know that the law does not permit them to take benefit of N/N. 08/2003 the appellant has not paid the duty of Central Excise confirmed against them. Therefore their bonafides cannot be pronounced as beyond doubt - demand upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
Issues:
Admissibility of benefit of exemption of duty under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 to goods manufactured by the appellant. Analysis: The appellant, a company, appealed against an Order-in-Appeal upholding the confiscation of seized goods and imposing a redemption fine along with a demand amounting to ?39,30,757/-, interest, and penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The main issue revolved around the admissibility of duty exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE to goods bearing the brand name "Autopal," registered under a different group company, Autolite India Ltd. The appellant argued that the brand name was used by all group companies as part of a family settlement, but the Revenue contended that the appellant could not claim SSI benefit under the notification as the brand name belonged to another entity. The Tribunal noted that the appellant wrongly believed they could use the brand name and still claim the exemption, contrary to legal provisions. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh-II Vs. Bhalla Enterprises, which clarified that the SSI exemption aims to benefit industries without the advantage of a brand name. The Tribunal held that the appellant's use of the brand name "Autopal" to avail the established brand's advantage for selling goods rendered them ineligible for the exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's failure to inform the Revenue about using another group company's brand name constituted suppression of facts, undermining their claim of bonafide belief. Ignorance of the law, as per legal precedent, cannot justify non-compliance. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal for lacking merit based on the legal interpretation provided by the Apex Court. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of adherence to legal provisions regarding brand ownership and duty exemptions. The case underscored the significance of transparency in dealings with Revenue authorities and the consequences of non-disclosure or misrepresentation of crucial facts in claiming statutory benefits. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal principles governing duty exemptions and the implications of using registered brand names without proper authorization under relevant laws.
|
