TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2001-C.E. when it manufactured goods under a brand name registered in the name of another person, and whether the demand raised within limitation could be defeated for want of mala fide intention.
Analysis: The goods manufactured by the appellant fell under Chapter 34 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were cleared under the brand name 'Prince', which was registered in the name of another concern. The appellant did not dispute that the brand name belonged to that concern. On the facts, the use of the same brand name on identical goods manufactured in the same business line indicated intention to use another's brand name, and the plea of bona fide belief was rejected. The reliance placed on decisions dealing with remote-area traders or use of one's own name was held inapplicable. The fact that the demand was raised within the limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act did not alter the consequence flowing from the use of another's brand name.
Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the exemption and the duty demand, confiscation, and penalty were sustained; the appeal was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee knowingly uses a brand name belonging to another person on identical goods, the small scale exemption is unavailable, and a demand raised within limitation is not defeated merely by absence of a separate finding of mala fide intention.
TaxTMI 
