TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the goods cleared under the brand name "NULON" were entitled to exemption under the small scale industry notifications on the footing that the brand name belonged to the appellant. (ii) Whether appropriation of the cash security towards redemption fine was sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether the goods cleared under the brand name "NULON" were entitled to exemption under the small scale industry notifications on the footing that the brand name belonged to the appellant.
Analysis: The documentary record did not show that the brand name was registered in the appellant-company's name. Registration in the name of an individual director could not be treated as registration in the name of the company, which was a separate legal entity. The memorandum relied upon by the appellant only permitted M/s. Hitech International to register and use the mark in India, and did not establish that the appellant-company had acquired the brand or succeeded to that right in the material period. On that basis, the brand name had to be treated as belonging to another person during the relevant period, attracting the bar in the exemption notifications. The cited High Court decision was distinguishable on facts.
Conclusion: The exemption under the notifications was not available to the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether appropriation of the cash security towards redemption fine was sustainable.
Analysis: The earlier setting aside of appropriation was only consequential to remand on value and quantity. After re-determination, the value of the seized goods stood settled, and the redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation could validly be adjusted against the cash security. Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 does not require a nexus between the quantum of redemption fine and the value of the goods, unlike the Customs Act provision relied upon by the appellant. No basis was shown to reduce the fine proportionately merely because the assessed value had been lowered.
Conclusion: The appropriation of the cash security towards redemption fine was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The denial of SSI exemption and the adjustment of security towards redemption fine were both sustained, leaving no ground to interfere with the order under challenge.
Ratio Decidendi: For SSI exemption based on brand-name ownership, the claimant must establish that the brand belongs to it in law during the relevant period; registration in the name of a different legal person does not satisfy that requirement, and redemption fine under Section 34 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not governed by any statutory rule linking its quantum to the value of the goods.
TaxTMI 
