9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PL. Brand name “Irony” was registered with the authorities in the name of Venky & Co. and from the deed of assignment it could be deduced that the said Brand name was assigned to the appellant ICPL in this case. Nothing is brought on record to show that even after assigning the Brand “Irony”, Venky & Co. were using and clearing the products with the said Brand name. In the absence of any such evidence we have to hold that by virtue of being Brand assigned to them, ICPL is entitled to avail the benefit of small scale exemption. - clearances effected by ICPL under the Brand “Irony” are eligible for exemption while the clearances effected on the Brand “Terminator” are not eligible for exemption and the appellant is required to discharge duty liability on the goods cleared with Brand name “Terminator” and interest thereof. The lower authorities are directed to quantify the amount of duty to the appellant. Reason to interfere with the impugned order as the adjudicating authority has given an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of ₹ 50,000/- which, in facts of this case is seems to be reasonable - appellant could have entertained a bonafide belief and the issue being ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or confiscation of the seized goods. 4. Learned Consultant appearing on behalf of appellants submits that Shri Venkatesh Yedidha, Proprietor of Venky and Co. and shareholder of ICPL. He would submit that somewhere down the line, Shri Venkatesh started a new Company namely Irony Clothing Pvt. Ltd. holding 90% of the share. He would then submit that by a Deed of Assignment dated 25.06.2001, the Brand IRONY was assigned to M/s. Irony Clothing Pvt. Ltd. for token consideration of ₹ 10,000/-. He would submit that the Brand name registered in the name of Venky and Co. was assigned to the appellant, subsequently held as the Brand name being someone else is incorrect. He would submit that in the case of Brand terminator is unable to make any submission of any assignment deed, as the Company is closed and not functioning. 4.1 As regards the clubbing of clearances it is his submission that Venky and Co. is a sole proprietorship firm while ICPL are Pvt. Ltd. Co. situated geologically apart and hence the clearances of these two independent entitles cannot be clubbed and demands be raised on the ground that the appellant assessee in this case has exceeded the threshold limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given by the actual owner of the Brand. As regards the clubbing of clearances he would submit that the reliance placed on Board s Circular is incorrect. 6. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 7. The issue involved in this case is firstly, whether Venky Co. and ICPL were one and the same and had a common manufacturing activities and clearances should be clubbed for working out exemption limit under the Notification No.8/2001 dated 01.03.2001, secondly, the ICPL having used the Brand name of Irony and Terminator belonging to another person, were ineligible for availment of exemption under Notification No.8/2001 or not; and lastly the goods under seizure being brand name of another person were liable for confiscation or otherwise. 7.1 After considering the submissions made by both sides and on perusal of the records, we find that as regards the issue No.1 the entire arguments of the learned Consultant is Venky Co. is sole proprietorship firm while ICPL is a Private Limited Company hence, clearances cannot be clubbed as also for the reason that both the entities are geographically located at different places, while i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the partners in common, each firm is entitled to separate exemption limit and hence the question of distributing the exemption may not arise. If one firm or individual owns several factories, he or it gets exemption only in respect of one individual owns several factories, he or it gets exemption only in respect of one lot and the manufacturer being only one entity there will be no question of distributing the exemption. (iv) Whether or not in the expression by or on behalf of a manufacturer the expression from one or more factories is added, the effect would be the same if the manufacturer is also the same. The expression one or more factories only further clarifies that whether the factory is one or more, it is the clearances by or on behalf of the same manufacturer which is to be taken into consideration for purposes of interpreting the exemption notification . (emphasis supplied) 7.2 It can be seen from the above reproduced portion at point No.(ii), the Board has specifically stated and clarified that Limited Companies whether public or private are separate entities and partnership firm is separate entity than the Ltd. Company. In the case in hand, the Limi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to hold that the appellant IPCL is not eligible to avail the benefit of SSI exemption in respect of clearances made by makers of Terminator Jeans Trousers as the said Brand belongs to Venky Co. To that extent, the appeal fails. 7.5 In sum, the clearances effected by ICPL under the Brand Irony are eligible for exemption while the clearances effected on the Brand Terminator are not eligible for exemption and the appellant is required to discharge duty liability on the goods cleared with Brand name Terminator and interest thereof. The lower authorities are directed to quantify the amount of duty to the appellant. 7.6 As regards the confiscation of the goods which was seized during the proceedings, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order as the adjudicating authority has given an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of ₹ 50,000/- which, in facts of this case is seems to be reasonable. Accordingly, to that extent, the appeal fails. 7.7 As regards the penalty imposed, we find appellant could have entertained a bonafide belief and the issue being interpretation of Notification the penalties imposed on the appellants are harsh and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
