9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, which stands passed by them in remand proceedings. It is seen that the original dispute involving the denial of benefit of small-scale exemption notification on the ground of use of brand name of others travelled upto High Court and the Hon'ble Madras High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh. In view of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, the Tribunal, on merit, held against the assessee and remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on limitation. The present impugned order is passed in pursuance of the remand order passed by the Tribunal. 2. The contention of the appellant is that, in the present case, the demand is for the period 1996-2000 raised vide show-c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anufacturing the goods with the brand name of others and also availing the benefits of small-scale exemption notification. As per the provisions of small-scale exemption notification the same is not available in case the goods are manufactured with the brand name of others. In the present case, the appellants never disclosed this fact to the Revenue. On going through the impugned orders, we note that the extended period of limitation stands invoked against the assessee by observing that the fact of use of brand name of other persons was never brought to the notice of the Revenue. The appellant has taken a stand that they were not aware of the Central Excise procedures and as such even though they were using the brand name "Cansoft" belongin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal could have held that the issue was contentious. There is a factual finding that the Respondents in the classification list did not disclose the use of the brand name belonging to another person. In so far as the Notification of 1993 is concerned, a perusal of Clause 7 clearly sets out, that where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under this Notification, then they are not entitled to the exemption. The issues which came up before the Tribunal were not on the use of the trade name of an assessee by another who was not eligible for exemption. Some of the cases were in respect of the same brand name used by two different persons. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of C.Ex., Pune v. Vora Products, 2008 (221) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) where considering the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act in a case where an assessee was using the brand name of another and had not disclosed the same in the classification list and had contended that it was done in ignorance of law, that defence was rejected. The Court posed to itself the question whether there was a willful default. The Court in the circumstances held that the predicates were satisfied and that the assessee was liable. This further supports the view that we have taken." As is seen, the facts involved in the present case are identical to the facts involved in the appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
