SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

PM-STIAC discusses accelerating Industry-Academia Partnership for Research and InnovationIndia, Singapore hold dialogue over cyber policy44 bids received under 10th Round of Commercial Coal Mine AuctionsCops arrest former Dy PM of Nepal in cooperative fraud casePuri highlights India's Petrochemical potential at India Chem 2024UN reports record high cocaine production in ColombiaMinister unveils 'Aviation Park' showcasing India's Aviation HeritageED finds PFI wanted to start Islamic movement in IndiaBlocking Credit - Rule 86ASEBI says investors can use 3-in-1 accounts to apply online for securitiesI-T- Penalty u/s 271(1)(b) need not be imposed when assessee moved an adjournment application & later complied with notice u/s 142(1): ITAT4 Kanwariyas killed as vehicle runs over them in Banka, BiharI-T- Accounting principles do not prescribe maintaining of a day-to-day stock register, and the books of accounts cannot be rejected on this basis alone: ITATUN food looted and diverted to army in EthiopiaCus - Alleged breach of conditions for operating public bonded warehouse; CESTAT rightly rejected allegations, having found no evidence of any such breach: HCUS budget deficit surges beyond USD 1.8 trillionST - Onus for proving admissibility of Cenvat Credit rests with service provider under Rule 9(6) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004: CESTATIf China goes into Taiwan, Trump promises to impose additional tariffsRussians love Indian films; Putin lauds BollywoodCus - Classification of goods is to be determined in accordance with Customs Tariff Act & General Interpretative Rules; Country-of-Origin Certificate may offer some guidance, but cannot solely dictate classification: CESTATCus - Benefit of such Country-of-Origin certificates cannot be denied if all relevant conditions are met under the applicable Customs Tariff rules: CESTATCuban power grid collapses; Country plunges into darknessCus - As per trite law, merely claiming a classification or exemption does not constitute mis-declaration or suppression - any misclassification does not equate to willful intent to evade duty: CESTATKarnataka mulling over 2% fee on aggregator platforms to bankroll gig worker welfare fundCus - Extended limitation cannot be invoked in case of assessee who is a regular importer with a consistent classification approach: CESTAT
 
CX - SSI exemption - Brand name - If Revenue wanted to deny exemption on ground that brand name is of another person, they must prove case & respondent cannot be asked to prove that brand name does not belong to any other person: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, DEC 23, 2015: THESE are Revenue appeals filed in the year 2005.

The issue involved is regarding the eligibility to avail benefit of Small Scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2002 dated 1.3.2002 for the alleged usage of the brand name of another person.

The respondents were manufacturers of pharmaceutical machinery. The lower authorities were of the view that the respondents were using the brand name "SAMS", while it is the case of the respondent that they were not using the said name and in fact the label on the machine is the manufacturer's own name and has no relation to the words "SAMS".

The AR submitted that "SAMS" is a brand name, which is of another person, and even if it is unregistered, the respondent could not have used the same and availed the benefit of exemption notification.

The Bench observed -

"5. …we find that there is no dispute as to the fact that the respondents had produced metal label which is affixed on each and every machine and it is recorded by the first appellate authority that the name plate contains details, such as name of the manufacturer in full, name of the product, model, sr. no. address, telephone no., fax no. ande.mail no. The first appellate authority has recorded the findings to the fact that there were no words or letters which would indicate that "SAMS" is a brand name affixed on such machines. The said particular name plates were produced before us and on perusal of the same, we find that the said label does not indicate that the machines are cleared with a brand name ‘SAMS'. In fact the said label indicated exactly the manufacturer's name and details which is Sams Techno Mech and Sams Tool machine, as the case may be. We find that the first appellate authority was correct in holding that if department wanted to deny the exemption notification on the ground that the brand name or their name is of another person, they must prove the case and the respondent cannot be asked to prove that trade name/brand name does not belong to any other person. We find that said metal label which was produced before us, creates an impression that the said machine is manufactured by SAMS Machine Tools or SAMS Techno Mech as the case may be. On such factual finding, we do find that the first appellate authority was correct and the Revenue has not made out any case."

Placing reliance on the apex Court decisions in StangenImmuno Diagnostics - 2015-TIOL-133-SC-CX and Pethe Brake Motors (P) Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-114-SC-CX, the CESTAT held that the impugned orders were correct and did not require any intereference.

The appeals filed by the CCE, Mumbai-IVwere rejected.

(See 2015-TIOL-2765-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri Samrat Choudhary, Hon’ble Deputy CM & FM of State of Bihar, delivering inaugural speech at TIOL Tax Congress 2024.

TOP NEWS


AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Justice A K Patnaik, Mentor to Hon'ble Jury for TIOL Awards 2024, addressing the gathering at the event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST