9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 782 - HC - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - benefit of exemption under Notifications Nos.175/86-C.E. and 1/93-C.E. dated 1.3.1986 and 28.2.1993 - Whether a party is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notifications Nos.175/86-C.E. and 1/93-C.E. dated 1.3.1986 and 28.2.1993, respectively, for the clearance of their product(s) manufactured under the brand name of another company not entitled to SSI exemption - Held that - A plain reading of the Section 23(1) of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 would disclose that once the registration of the trade mark under the said Act is granted, it takes effect from the date of making of the application for the registration. The certificate of registration issued to the appellants clearly discloses that the application was filed on 01.05.1992. In fact, the certificate itself reads that the appellants have been registered under the Act in relation to the trade mark for telephone (basic and cordless) as of the date of 01.05.1992. Obviously, therefore, the authorities below erred in denying the benefit under the said notification w.e.f. 01.05.1992 to the appellants and order in that regard cannot be sustained. - The appellants are entitled for the benefit under the Notification Nos.175/86- CE dated 01.03.1986 and 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993 w.e.f. 01.05.1992 onwards. - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
1. Entitlement to exemption under Notifications 175/86-C.E. and 1/93-C.E. for product clearance under another brand name. 2. Interpretation of Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Rules regarding reversal of Modvat credit. 3. Benefit availability under Notifications 175/86-CE and 1/93-CE based on Trade Marks Act registration date. Analysis: 1. The High Court addressed the issue of entitlement to exemption under Notifications 175/86-C.E. and 1/93-C.E. for product clearance under a different brand name. The Court referred to a previous judgment and highlighted the importance of substantial questions of law. The Court examined the facts of the case and the arguments presented by the parties. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the interpretation of relevant rules and the indefeasibility of credit once validly taken. 2. The Court delved into the interpretation of Rule 9(2) of the Cenvat Rules concerning the reversal of Modvat credit. Reference was made to the Apex Court's decision in a similar case under the Central Excise Rules, emphasizing the manufacturer's entitlement to credit unless illegally or irregularly taken. The Court agreed with the interpretation given by the Apex Court and concluded that even if the final product is exempt from excise duty, the assessee cannot be compelled to reverse the Modvat credit already availed. 3. Another issue revolved around the benefit availability under Notifications 175/86-CE and 1/93-CE based on the Trade Marks Act registration date. The Court analyzed Section 23(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and highlighted that registration of a trademark takes effect from the date of the application. The Court found that the authorities erred in denying the benefit under the notifications from the registration date and allowed the appeal, granting the appellants the benefit from the specified date onwards. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Act and the relevant notifications issued by the Government. In conclusion, the High Court's judgment provided detailed analysis and interpretation of legal provisions, addressing multiple issues related to exemption entitlement, Modvat credit reversal, and benefit availability under specific notifications based on the Trade Marks Act registration date. The Court's decision was based on a thorough examination of the facts, legal arguments, and relevant precedents, ensuring a comprehensive resolution of the legal issues at hand.
|
