9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g on a website www.indiafilings.com/index.php, concluded that the two brand names were registered only in the name of Shri Amrik Singh and therefore, allowed his appeal but did not allow the appeals of the two appellants herein (Satnam Singh and Harvinder Singh). From the copies of the certificates of registration issued by the Registrar of Trade marks produced before us, we are convinced that the two trade marks Texla and Texlavision were also registered in the name of the two appellants herein. Therefore, they were entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA , PRESIDENT And HON BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO , MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Shri Gaurav Gupta , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices provided using the brand name TEXLA was not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST as amended. Therefore, service tax was demanded from the three and demands were confirmed against the three by the Assistant Commissioner. 4. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order allowing the appeal of Amrik Singh holding that TEXLA was registered in his name and therefore, he was entitled to the exemption notification but held that the appellants herein (Satnam Singh and Harvinder Singh) were not entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. Aggrieved, these two appeals are filed before us. Submissions on behalf of the appellant 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er be set aside insofar it pertains to the two appellants. Submissions on behalf of the Revenue 9. Learned authorised representative supported the impugned order. Findings 10. We have considered the submissions advanced by both sides and perused the records. The short question to be answered is if the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 as amended by Notification No. 4/2007-ST dated 01.03.2007. The sole dispute is if the appellants get excluded by virtue of the proviso to this notification which reads as follows: Provided that nothing contained in this notification shall apply to,- (i) taxable services provided by a person under a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
