9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the demand for the period from 01.05.1992. - Board clarified that before the denial of benefit of SSI exemption notification regarding ownership of the brand name/trade name, it should be ascertained from each case. In the present case, there is no dispute that the assessee owned the brand name w.e.f. 01.05.1992. We find that the case is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the appellants own case. Hence, the appeal filed by the Revenue has no merit. - Matter related to limitation need to decided - Decide against Revenue. - E/2161/2006 & E/2181/2006 - Final Order No.51081-51082/2015 - Dated:- 21-1-2015 - MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. P.S. PRUTHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 01.05.1992, but, a demand alongwith interest for the period November 1991 to 31/04/1992 (prior to registration of the trade mark) was upheld and penalty was reduced to ₹ 1 lakh. Revenue and the assessee filed appeals against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Tribunal in the earlier order directed the Adjudicating Authority as to whether the brand name Weston was registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 in favour of the appellant for telephones w.e.f. 01.05.1992. There is no dispute that the trade mark authority registered the trade mark w.e.f. 01.05.1992. So, the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly set aside the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw would disclose that once the registration of the trade mark under the said Act is granted, it takes effect from the date of making of the application for the registration. The certificate of registration issued to the appellants clearly discloses that the application was filed on 1-5-1992. In fact, the certificate itself reads that the appellants have been registered under the Act in relation to the trade mark for telephone (basic and cordless) as of the date of 1-5-1992. Obviously, therefore, the authorities below erred in denying the benefit under the said notification w.e.f. 1-5-1992 to the appellants and order in that regard cannot be sustained. 4. Ld.Authorised Representative submits that Honble Supreme Court in the case of CC ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mber 1993 as barred by limitation. On a query from the Bench, both the sides submit that this issue was not considered by the lower authorities. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the assessee had raised this issue before the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence, it is required to be examined by the adjudicating authority. 7. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. The appeal filed by the assessee is rejected on merit. But, the Adjudicating Authority is directed to examine the submissions of the assessee as to whether the demand is barred by limitation. Needless to say that the Adjudicating authority shall give a proper opportunity of hearing before passing order. Appeal filed by the assessee is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
