9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment's case against the appellant is that these brand names do not belong to Appellant but are registered in the name of M/s. Diamond Water Proof Compound Ltd., who have assigned these brand names under two assessment deeds to M/s. Diamond Retail Mart and M/s.Diamond Retail Mart, in turn, has assigned these brand names to the appellant. The Apex Court in the case of Primella Sanitary Products (2005 (4) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has upheld the Tribunal's order allowing the SSI exemption under notification no.175/86-CE and 1/93, when the assessee was using the brand name registered in the name of another person under a bona fide assignment deed. We find that the same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Vikshar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order dated 3.4.2014 confirmed the duty demand of ₹ 52,74,336.- against the appellant for the period 1.9.2011 to 2.3.2011 along with interest thereon under Section 11 AB and imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant under Section 11 AC and penalty of ₹ 10 lakh on Shri Amit Gautam, Director of the appellant company. Against this order of the Commissioner, these two appeals have been filed along with stay applications. 2. Heard both the sides in respect of stay applications. 3. Shri R. Krishnan, Advocate, the ld. Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the brand names, in question, being used by the appellant company are registered in the name of M/s.Diamond Water Proof Compound who had assigned the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osal of the appeal. 4. Shri V.P. Batra, ld. Departmental Representative, opposed the stay application by reiterating the findings of the commissioner in the impugned order and pleaded that the brand names i.e. Decotouch and Diamond Gold , in question, are registered in the name of M/s Diamond Water Proof Compound and merely by assessment deed in favour of the appellant, which are not registered, the appellant cannot be said to be the owner of the brand names, that in course of search of the factory, the appellant were also found to be using the brand name Ultra White , Korean , Samsung and Champion on their goods which also do not belong to them and hence, the goods, in question, in respect of which these brand names were used, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rand names under two assessment deeds to M/s. Diamond Retail Mart and M/s.Diamond Retail Mart, in turn, has assigned these brand names to the appellant. The Apex Court in the case of Primella Sanitary Products (supra) has upheld the Tribunal's order allowing the SSI exemption under notification no.175/86-CE and 1/93, when the assessee was using the brand name registered in the name of another person under a bona fide assignment deed. We find that the same view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Vikshara Trading Invest P. Ltd. (supra). 9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the amount already deposited by the appellant is sufficient for hearing of this matter and as such, the requirement of pre-depo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
