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>CESTAT upholds duty demand on disputed brand names in tax appeal case</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II Versus BHASIN ELECTRICALS LTD.</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II Versus BHASIN ELECTRICALS LTD. - 2006 (193) E.L.T. 111 (Tri. - Del.) Issues: Revenue appeal against Order-in-Appeal for goods cleared with brand names of others without duty payment; Commissioner (Appeals) decision on duty demand for specific brand names; Revenue's claim of goods clearance with other manufacturers' brand names; Evidence of brand name assignment to respondents; Lack of evidence for certain brand names ownership by other manufacturers.The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, heard an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the clearance of goods with brand names of others without payment of duty. The Revenue alleged that the respondents were clearing goods with brand names like BPL, National, Videocon, and Onida without duty payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand for goods with certain brand names like Parachute, Skylark, and National, but exempted goods with brand names Welcome and Easy, stating they were assigned to the respondents. However, the Revenue contended that the appeal was wrongly accepted, citing an admission by the authorised signatory that goods were cleared with other manufacturers' brand names.The respondents argued that while admitting to clearing goods with other brand names, they contested only the lack of evidence provided by the Revenue regarding ownership of certain brand names by other manufacturers. The issue revolved around goods cleared with brand names Welcome, Easy, Regal, Prestige, Airwell, and Kranti. The respondents presented evidence of assignment of Welcome and Easy brand names to them, which the Revenue did not dispute. However, for brand names Regal, Airwell, and Kranti, no evidence existed to prove ownership by other manufacturers.Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, as the evidence showed that brand names Welcome and Easy were assigned to the respondents, and there was a lack of proof that brand names Regal, Airwell, and Kranti belonged to other manufacturers. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court on 16-2-2005 by the Vice-President of the Tribunal, S.S. Kang.
TaxTMI 