9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (6) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment does not enhance the case of the revenue, because the said agreement was only a technical know-how agreement and not an agreement for user of the brand name - the technical know-how agreement entered into by and between the assessee and the West German Company has expired in the year 1980 and the same has not been renewed thereafter – as there are various decisions of Tribunal and Apex court against revenue, merely because, the Apex Court subsequently in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd(2005 (4) TMI 64 (SC)) ruled to the contrary, it could not be said that the assessee had suppressed material facts - against revenue. - Central Excise Appeal No. 94 of 2011 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2012 - J P Devadhar and A R Joshi, JJ. For Appellant: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not that is to say a name or a mark, such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person. Even after the issuance of Notification No.223/87 dated 22.8.1987 the benefit of the exemption was continued to be allowed to the assessee. 4. Nearly after two decades of granting of benefit of the Small Scale Exemption under various Notifications issued from time to time, the Commissioner of Central Excise issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd, Thane and ors being Central Excise Appeal No. 209/2006 dated 2nd August, 2007 confirmed the demand for the period of one year from the date of the show cause notice but deleted the demand confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority by invoking the larger period of limitation prescribed under Section 11A of the Act. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, the Revenue has filed the present appeal. 7. Mr Rao, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue contended that in the present case the technical know-how agreement entered into by and between the assessee and the West German Company in the year 1975 were not disclosed to the Department at the relevant time. Moreover, when the particulars regardin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was held that benefit of exemption notification is not lost by the assessee, merely because they affix/indicate on their product, the name of the holding Company. It is only when the Apex Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd (supra) Commissioner of Central Excise 2005 (183) ELT 123 reversed the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, and also distinguished the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd (supra) the issue has been finally settled in favour of the revenue. 11. In these circumstances, in the facts of the present case, the argument that the assessee bona fide believed that inscribing words in technical collaboration with West German Company would not constitute user of the brand name of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
