9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 697X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fference is only in the logo used - The use of even part of somebody else s brand name is sufficient to disqualify the benefit of SSI exemptions in the light of the apex court s decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy Vs Rukmani Pakkwell Traders [2004 -TMI - 46913 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided against of assessee whether the benefit of cum-duty price is available to the assessees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondents herein were engaged in the manufacture of school bags, travel bags and other goods falling under CET sub-heading 4201.90. Investigation by the department revealed that the unit was affixing the brand name TIP TOP on the goods manufactured by them, and the above brand name had been registered by one Shri C.K. Abdul Rahiman of Bangalore, as confirmed by the Trade Marks Registry, Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P TOP used by the respondents is different from the brand name TIP TOP BANGALORE used by Shri Abdul Rahiman; (b) brand name TIP TOP is not owned by any other person and (c) exemption cannot be denied to the respondents/assessees as they had obtained their right to property in their brand name by using it before it was registered in the name of another person (Shri C.K. Abdul Rahiman); hence th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding by the lower appellate authority on the assessee s contention that the demand is barred by limitation, we set aside the impugned order and remit the issue of time bar to the adjudicating authority. 3. The second appeal of the Revenue relates to the issue as to whether the benefit of cum-duty price is available to the assessees, which benefit has been extended by Commissioner (Appeals). S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
