9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 656 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of appeal - SSI exemption - Notification No.8 of 2010 - Use of other person's brand name - Held that - Court in the case of The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai - II V. Vadapalani Press and another 2015 (1) TMI 318 - MADRAS HIGH COURT while dealing with the objection raised by the assessee as to the maintainability of the appeal, after following the above-said decision of the Supreme Court in Navin Chemicals Manufacturing & Trading Co. Ltd. - Vs Collector of Customs (1993 (9) TMI 107 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), and that of the Gujarat High Court in the case of in Commissioner of Central Excise v. JBF Industries Ltd., 2010 (12) TMI 437 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , held that appeal is not maintainable. - Court is not inclined to deal with the matter, while disposing off the present appeal as not maintainable, is inclined to grant liberty to the appellant/Revenue to pursue the matter in accordance with law, if so advised. - Decide against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2000 when using another person's brand name. 2. Consideration of previous decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court in granting SSI exemption. 3. Application of Section 25 of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 for granting SSI exemption. Issue 1: Interpretation of SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2000 when using another person's brand name: The case involved the appellant challenging the order of the Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal filed by the Revenue. The dispute centered around the SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2000 when the brand name of another person was used. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that after the expiry of the registration period of the brand name "MODI," it could not be said to belong to any other person, thus entitling the respondents to the SSI notification benefit. The Tribunal's decision was based on the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, which clarified the ownership of the brand name after the registration period. Issue 2: Consideration of previous decisions by the Hon'ble Apex Court in granting SSI exemption: The appellant raised the issue of the Appellate Tribunal rejecting the department's appeal without considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a previous case. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and the ownership of the brand name after the registration period. The Tribunal's reliance on the specific provisions of the Act led to the rejection of the department's appeal, highlighting the importance of legal interpretations in determining SSI exemption eligibility. Issue 3: Application of Section 25 of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958 for granting SSI exemption: Another substantial question of law raised in the appeal was regarding the Tribunal's decision to grant the SSI exemption based on Section 25 of the Trade and Merchandise Act, 1958. The Tribunal's reasoning was that Section 25 dealt with the registration of a brand name or trade name, which was not an essential requirement for granting the exemption under Notification No.8/2000. The Tribunal's interpretation of the legal provisions played a crucial role in allowing the SSI exemption in the case. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, stating that the matter was not maintainable based on the provisions of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court referred to previous decisions and legal interpretations to support its decision, granting liberty to the Revenue to pursue the matter in the appropriate forum if advised. The judgment emphasized the significance of legal provisions and precedents in determining the eligibility for SSI exemption under relevant notifications.
|
