Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (9) TMI 537

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hence, there was no suppression of facts. Time-Barred Demand - Held that:- The demand had to be treated as time-barred inasmuch as the assessee had filed the declaration claiming the benefit of the Notification and mentioning the use of brand trade name Zoloto-M - The respondents have shown the fact of use of said brand name in their declaration as also the fact of availment of SSI exemption Notification - Having placed the entire facts before the Revenue, they cannot be held guilty of any suppression or mis-statement with intent to evade payment of duty - The appellate authority had rightly denied the extended period of limitation to the Revenue – Decided against the revenue. - E/1804/2005 - A/698/2012-EX(BR)(PB) - Dated:- 18-6-2012 - .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... admitted that the brand name ZOLOTO was registered with M/s. Zoloto Industries, Jalandhar and that they were affixing brand name ZOLOTO-m on Pipe fittings being manufactured by them and mentioning the same on their invoices. 5. It was alleged that merely writing the word m with the brand name ZOLOTO , i.e., ZOLOTO-m does not distinguish it from the brand name ZOLOTO belonging to M/s Zoloto Industries and the usage of deceptively similar brand name established clearly the intention of the party to take advantage of the established brand name of another person. Thus, the party was not eligible to avail exemption under the SSI notification. 6. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice was issued and the adjudicating authority vide O-I-O d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d become entitled to benefit of Notification No. 8/98-C.E. Board s Circular No. 88/88, dated. 13-12-1988 was also referred. 10. Commissioner (Appeals) has also held that as both the parties using the brand name ZOLOTO-m and ZOLOTO fall under the jurisdiction of same Central Excise Division, the department was fully aware about the use of brand name by both the parties and hence, there is no suppression of facts. 11. Accordingly, he allowed the appeal of the respondent. 12. On going through the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals), we find that there is no dispute about the fact that respondent was using Zoloto-M and not Zoloto which belonged to Zoloto Industries. There is also no dispute that the respondent applied for registr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o them, the delay on the part of the authorities to grant such registration cannot act prejudice to the assessee s benefit. As such we agree with the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the respondent having been granted registration which has to be made effective from the date of application, the respondents were entitled to the benefit of the Notification. 15. Apart from the above, we find that Commissioner (Appeals) has granted benefit to the respondent on the issue of time bar also by observing as under :- The above contention of the appellant is quite correct and convincing in as much as they have been using the brand name ZOLOTO-m on their products and thus adding word m with the trade name ZOLOTO registered by another compan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... facts. The demand for the period from 29-5-2000 to 26-10-2001 is clearly time-barred as the Show Cause Notice was issued on 15-4-2002. 16. As is seen from above, Commissioner (Appeals) has held the demand to be time-barred inasmuch as the assessee has filed the declaration claiming the benefit of the Notification and mentioning the use of brand trade name Zoloto-M. Revenue has made a ground that inasmuch as the assessee never disclosed the fact that the said brand name was not registered in their name and similar brand name was registered in the name of Zoloto Industries, suppression is attributable to them. We do not find any merits with the above contention. The respondents have shown the fact of use of said brand name in their declara .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates