9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 757 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - selling through distributors at the selling price which is less than MRP - exemption under Notification No. 8/2003- CE dated 01.03.2003 as amended - HELD THAT - Commissioner (Appeals) in his order held that it was for the Department to disprove the claim and to establish that the deed of assignment, though dated 3-4-1993 was in fact executed after the date of seizure. Without establishing this, the assignment deed cannot be brushed aside. In the above set of facts, the impugned order cannot sustain and has to be set aside. We therefore hold that appellants' claim to be owners of the brand name Golden Oriole on the date of visit of the officers to the appellant's factory on 10-8-1994 is established on the basis of the assignment deed and accordingly, they were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. It has been submitted that the above order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been accepted by the Revenue and no further appeals have been filed. Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Denial of Small Scale Exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. 2. Validity of the Assignment Deed for the trade mark 'Kwality'. 3. Imposition of penalties on the partners of the appellant firm. Detailed Analysis: 1. Denial of Small Scale Exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE: The core issue in these appeals is the denial of small-scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. The appellant, a manufacturer of biscuits and cookies under the trade mark 'Kwality', was denied this exemption on the grounds that the trade mark did not belong to them. The appellant argued that the brand name 'Kwality' was permanently assigned to them from 2003 onwards, and the Commissioner (Appeals) had previously allowed the exemption for the period from September 2003 onwards. The Tribunal referenced the case of Zarafshan Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [2000 (124) ELT 256], which supported the appellant's claim to the assignment of the brand name and the consequent eligibility for the exemption. 2. Validity of the Assignment Deed for the trade mark 'Kwality': The Revenue challenged the validity of the assignment deed, arguing that it was not submitted until seven years after its purported execution and was neither registered nor notarized. Additionally, the legal authority of Smt. Khurshidbano Sharif Ahmed Ansari to execute the deed was questioned. The Tribunal noted that the assignment deed dated 15.11.2003 was indeed in existence and that the Commissioner (Appeals) had previously accepted this in his order dated 20.04.2016. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue had not conducted a thorough investigation to disprove the authenticity of the assignment deed, as required by judicial standards. 3. Imposition of penalties on the partners of the appellant firm: The penalties imposed on the partners of the appellant firm under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, were also contested. The Tribunal referenced several judicial pronouncements, including the cases of C.C.E. & C., Surat-II vs. Mohammed Mohammed Ghani [2010 (259) E.L.T. 179 (Guj.)] and Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Jai Prakash Motwani [2010 (258) E.L.T. 204 (Guj.)], which established that partners cannot be penalized separately when the partnership firm itself is penalized. The Tribunal concluded that the penalties on the individual partners were not legally sustainable. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders. It was held that the appellant was entitled to the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, as the assignment deed for the trade mark 'Kwality' was valid and the penalties on the partners were not legally sustainable. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principles of judicial discipline and consistency in tax administration. The appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs as per the law.
|
