9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 485X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of transaction value - Held that:- The basis adopted by Revenue for rejecting the valuation adopted by the appellant and revaluating the goods at enhanced price based on the international brand is not tenable - Rejection of value not justified - Appeal allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 52498 & 52588 of 2016 - A/52696-52697/2018-EX[DB] - Dated:- 12-7-2018 - Mr. Anil Choudhary, Member (Judicial) And Mr. C L Mahar, Member (Technical) Shri S K Pahwa, and Rohan Pahwa, Advocates for the Appellants Shri S K Bansal, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per: Anil Choudhary: Heard the parties. The issue involved in these appeals is regarding denial of SSI exemption and consequently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods was revoked as no suitable case could be made out against the appellants 7. In September 2007 Beston Electrovision Pvt. Ltd. signed an agreement with Beston Skyvision Pvt. Ltd. whereby they allowed Beston Skyvision Pvt. Ltd. the use of their brand name in regard to television for payment or ₹ 10/- per set manufactured by them. This facts also finds mention in the statement dated 20.08.2011, which has been relied upon in the present proceedings. 8. On record there is an agreement between dated 05.04.2011 between M/s. BDP Radio Corporation and M/s. Beston Electrovision Pvt. Ltd. whereby the BESTON brand name was assigned to Beston Electrovision Pvt. Ltd. This agreement also finds mention in the statements of Mr. Manish Nathani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Vs. Sanjay Agrawal -2017 (345) ELT 568 (Tri. Del). 12. It also merits appreciation that the appellants had taken over the running business of BDP Corporation with its assets and liabilities; and there is no gainsaying the fact the trademark is a business asset. Also, the appellants had permitted the use of brand name BESTON to Beston Skyvision Pvt. Ltd. on payments of some royalty. Therefore, denial of the benefits of SSI exemption is not sustainable. 13. In this background, notwithstanding the sustainability of the case of appellants on merits, the appellants had bonafide belief about having acquired the brand name with effect from May 2005. The fact that the use of brand name was being shown on their invoices provides adequate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cordingly, the learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal both on merits as well as limitation. He further prays for setting aside the penalty on the company as well as on the appellant s Director. 17. The learned DR appearing for the Revenue has relied on the impugned order. He further stated that as the appellant applied for transfer of the brand name in favour of the company only in the year 2011, as such, the period in dispute being prior to April, 2011. Accordingly, Revenue have rightly denied the SSI exemption on the ground of using brand name of another. As regards valuation issue also, he supported the findings of the authorities below. 18. Having considered the rival contentions, we are satisfied that the brand name belong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
