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>Partnership Firm Denied SSI Exemption for Brand Name Use</h1> <h3>Akas Medical Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-Ii</h3> Akas Medical Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-Ii - TMI Issues:1. Denial of SSI exemption due to brand name ownership.2. Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with stay order.3. Prima facie ownership of brand name 'AKAS' by another entity.4. Eligibility to use the brand name based on partnership.5. Applicability of precedent in brand name ownership cases.6. Requirement for further predeposit and waiver conditions.Analysis:1. The case involved a partnership firm manufacturing sight testing instruments under the brand name 'AKAS' and trading medical equipment. The firm was denied SSI exemption as the brand name was claimed to be owned by another entity, resulting in a demand of duty, interest, and penalty. An appeal was filed, but dismissal occurred due to non-compliance with a stay order requiring a predeposit.2. The firm argued that a partner was also associated with the entity owning the brand name, justifying their use of 'AKAS.' They referenced a Tribunal decision in a similar case to support their claim. However, upon examination, it was revealed that the brand name was indeed owned by a different entity, leading to doubts about the firm's claim.3. The Tribunal noted that the brand name 'AKAS' belonged to a separate entity, as evidenced by the Certificate of Registration of Trade Mark. The common partnership between the firm and the entity owning the brand name did not suffice to establish the right to use the brand name. A precedent cited by the firm was deemed inapplicable due to differences in brand ownership.4. While the firm failed to establish a strong case for waiving the predeposit, the Tribunal considered their submissions and directed a further predeposit of a specified amount within a timeframe. Upon compliance, the remaining predeposit amount would be waived, and recovery stayed pending appeal disposal.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of brand name ownership, partnership implications, and predeposit requirements, ultimately ruling in favor of the need for further predeposit based on the lack of a strong prima facie case for exemption.
TaxTMI 