9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Appeal No. E/1949/2008 & 992/2010-EX[DB] - A/70336-70337/2018 - Dated:- 8-11-2017 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) Ms. Stuti Saggi, Advocate, for Appellant Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh, Deputy Commissioner (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per: Anil G. Shakkarwar The present two appeals are arising out of a common investigation initiated through visit of Central Excise Officers, Agra on 05/09/2006 of the manufacturing factory premises of M/s Atul Polyplast. Therefore, these are taken together for decision. Appeal No. E/1949/2008 is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 191-CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 30/04/2008 passed by Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Kanpur. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-Original No. 95/AC/Adj/2007 dated 05/02/2008. The appellant submitted before the Original Authority that it was alleged in the said Show Cause Notice that there was no mention of Brand Name/Trade Names in the balance sheets of M/s Atul Pumps Pvt. Ltd. and that the balance sheet depicted only summarized status of assets and liabilities on the last year of the financial year and individual transactions were not shown and that the brand name of M/s Atul Pumps Pvt. Ltd. vide Certificate No. 534805 dated 16/06/2006 Certificated No. 375272 dated 23/05/2005 and that the deed of assignment was entered into on 01/04/2004 for a consideration of ₹ 3,000/- and both the brand names were assigned by M/s Atul Pumps Pvt. Ltd. to appellant. It was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the appeal through impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 15/12/2009, wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not interfere with the order passed by Original Authority. Aggrieved by the above stated two orders, the appellants preferred above stated two appeals before this Tribunal. 3. Heard both the parties and considered the submissions. 4. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The issue to be decided is, whether a Trade Mark/Brand Name can be assigned for a meagre consideration of ₹ 3,000/- cash. We find that Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa Versus Primella Sanitary Products reported at 2005 (184) E.L.T. 125 (S.C.) as held a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
