9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (4) TMI 57 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of SSI Notification No.1/93 denied for the reason that they were clearing ice-creams affixed with the brand name Pastonji which did not belong to them assignment of brand name - held that on assignment the assignee is to be treated as the brand name owner even when the assignment deed is not registered - we hold that the benefit of SSI Notification1/93 is admissible to the appellants and hence set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals
Issues: Duty demand denial under SSI Notification No.1/93 CE, Penalty imposition on firm and partner
In the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, the issue revolved around the duty demand confirmation of Rs. 10,36,385.50 against M/s. K.C. Engineering Corporation (KCEC) by the Commissioner of Central Excise. The Commissioner denied the benefit of SSI Notification No.1/93 CE to KCEC, alleging that they were clearing ice-creams affixed with the brand name "Pastonji," which was owned by Shri Suleman Valli Hafizi of M/s. Pastonji Brand & Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Additionally, penalties of Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- were imposed on the firm and its partner, Shri Abdul V. Hafizi, respectively. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that although Shri Suleman V. Hafizi had initially applied for the registration of the brand name, it was later assigned to M/s. KCEC under a deed of assignment dated 3.2.95. Despite the subsequent re-assignment of the brand name to Shri Suleman V. Hafizi in June 1996, the appellants had not affixed the brand name on their goods after the re-assignment. Importantly, the brand name was not registered in Suleman V. Hafizi's name during the relevant period. Relying on various precedents, including Tribunal decisions in Primella Sanitary Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Goa and Apex Court decisions in CCE, Meerut vs Rajdhani Plywood Industries, the Tribunal held that on assignment, the assignee is considered the brand name owner, even without registration of the assignment deed. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the benefit of SSI Notification claimed by the appellants was admissible, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals without addressing the plea of limitation on the demand.
|
