TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal upholds SSI exemption based on distinct brand name and different goods produced</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the decision to grant Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption to the respondents in a case where the ... SSI Exemption - Brand name Issues:1. Appeal against order-in-appeal affirming order-in-original granting SSI exemption.2. Contention regarding the use of a similar brand name.3. Interpretation of SSI exemption Notification.4. Application of the law in cases of different goods manufactured.Analysis:The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi was filed by the Revenue challenging the order-in-appeal that upheld the order-in-original granting the benefit of Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption Notification to the respondents. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had affirmed the decision of the adjudicating authority allowing the SSI exemption to the respondents for clearances of specific goods mentioned in the show cause notice.During the hearing, the Revenue, represented by Shri A.S. Bedi, contended that the respondents should be denied the SSI exemption due to their use of the brand name 'Bhalla Fine,' which was similar to the brand name 'Bhalla' owned by another entity. However, the Tribunal found that both the lower authorities had concluded that the brand name 'Bhalla Fine' used by the respondents was distinct and the goods they produced were different from those of the entity owning the 'Bhalla' brand. The Tribunal upheld these factual findings, stating that there was no substantial evidence to dispute them.As the respondents were using a different brand name for different products compared to the entity owning the 'Bhalla' brand, they were rightfully granted the benefit of the SSI exemption notification. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was established that if the goods manufactured by an entity accused of using another brand name were distinct from those of the brand owner, the exemption could not be denied. The Tribunal endorsed the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the precedent set in Taj Serpent Eggs Factory v. CCE [1996 (85) E.L.T. 78], which was approved by the Larger Bench.Consequently, the Tribunal deemed the impugned order to be valid, affirming the decision to grant the SSI exemption to the respondents and dismissing the appeal of the Revenue.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
