TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Tribunal Upholds Duty & Penalty for Brand Name Issue, Director Penalty Overturned</h1> <h3>UNISON ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA</h3> The Tribunal upheld the demand of duty and penalty on the company for clearing excisable goods bearing another person's brand name, despite the company's ... SSI Exemption - Brand name - Penalty - Quantum of Issues:Whether the appellants are clearing excisable goods bearing the brand name of another person.Analysis:The case involved two appeals by a company and its director regarding the clearance of excisable goods bearing another person's brand name. The company claimed the benefit of the Small Scale Industries (SSI) Exemption Notification for their products sold under their brand name 'CREMICA.' However, the Department disallowed the exemption, considering stickers with abbreviations of marketing companies as brand names. The company argued that these abbreviations did not constitute brand names, citing precedents where similar practices were allowed under the SSI Notification.The Department contended that the stickers indicated a trade connection with the marketing companies, thus falling within the definition of brand name under the SSI Notification. Referring to legal precedents, the Department emphasized that even partial use of a brand name could disqualify from exemption. The Department also highlighted discrepancies in the stickers presented by the appellants, indicating a connection with the marketing companies, making them ineligible for the SSI exemption.After considering both arguments, the Tribunal examined the SSI Exemption Notification's provisions regarding brand names and trade connections. The Tribunal analyzed the stickers presented by the company and concluded that the use of abbreviations clearly indicated a trade connection with the marketing companies, falling under the definition of brand name in the Notification. The Tribunal distinguished the cited precedents based on differing factual contexts and upheld the demand of duty and penalty on the company. The Tribunal found the penalty imposed reasonable given the duty amount but set aside the penalty on the director. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, affirming the duty demand and penalty on the company while exempting the director from additional penalty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
