9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 690X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the brand name should be owned by another person - It is also not in dispute that the German company has got the brand name registered in their name in India - Decided against the assessee Regarding redemption fine - in the circumstances of this case, the minimum fine of Rs 5000/- will serve the purpose - Appeal is disposed of - E/4044/03 - E/4044/2003 - Dated:- 26-7-2011 - Mr.P.G. Chacko, Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Appellant : (Represented by: Mr. D.B. Gadekar, Consultant) Respondent : (Represented by: Mr. V.K. Singh, SDR) Per: P.G. Chacko 1. This appeal filed by the assessee is against the confiscation of excisable goods, redemption fine and penalty. During the period from 30.5.2000 to 30.9.2000, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... smissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on merits. Hence the present appeal of the assessee. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we have not found merits in the grounds of this appeal. The duty liability of the assessee is not in dispute. It is submitted that the entire amount of duty was paid, though from the order-in-original it appears that a small amount of duty remained unpaid. The challenge is against confiscation and penalty. The learned consultant for the appellant has contended that they had no intent to evade payment of duty inasmuch as they were maintaining bona fide belief that their branded products were eligible for SSI exemption. It is submitted that the brand name had been assigned to the assessee by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring activity had just been commenced and that SSI exemption would be claimed in respect of the final products. There was no indication, in that letter, that the goods would be cleared under any brand name. The next letter referred to by both sides is one submitted by the assessee to the Assistant Commissioner towards the end of September, 2000. This letter contained a reference to 'brand name' but yet did not disclose the fact that the brand name belonged to the German company. Even otherwise, this letter of the assessee was issued towards the end of the period of dispute (May to September 2000) and, therefore, nothing contained in this letter can be relied upon by the appellant in support of their contention that the crucial fact pertain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght to use the brand name. Such assignment prima facie would not detract from the German company's ownership over the brand name. It is also not in dispute that the German company has got the brand name registered in their name in India. In the circumstances, there can be no resistance to the findings recorded by the lower authorities that the assessee had suppressed the material fact before the department with intent to avail inadmissible exemption and to evade payment of duty. That being the position, the order of confiscation under Rule 173Q is unassailable. 6. However, the quantum of redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation appears to warrant interference. The lower authorities have imposed a fine equal to the value of the goo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
