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>Ownership of Brand Names Upheld via Sale Deed: Revenue Challenge Dismissed</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III Versus Aksol Industries, Aksol Chemical Industries</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-III Versus Aksol Industries, Aksol Chemical Industries - TMI Issues:- Allegations of Revenue against M/s.Aksol Industries and M/s.Aksol Chemical Industries regarding the availing of SSI notification for manufacturing and clearing leather chemicals with brand names of others.- Challenge by Revenue against the dropping of duty demands by the learned Commissioner (Appeals).- Dispute over the ownership and use of brand names by the respondents post reorganization of business activities.Analysis:1. Allegations of Revenue: The Revenue contended that M/s.Aksol Industries and M/s.Aksol Chemical Industries availed the SSI notification for manufacturing and clearing leather chemicals with brand names belonging to others. The original authority confirmed the duty demands, but the Commissioner (Appeals) dropped them. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that the brand names originally belonged to Aksol Chemicals and other group companies. They also alleged the use of the brand name 'Emi' belonging to another company. The Revenue sought to deny the SSI exemption based on these grounds.2. Ownership of Brand Names: The Tribunal examined the ownership of the brand names used by the respondents. It was established that the brand names initially belonged to Aksol Chemicals and were subsequently used by various group companies. However, through a Sale Deed and Deed of Assignment in 1998, all properties and goodwill, including the brand names, were legally transferred to the respondents. The Tribunal found that post this assignment, the clearances made by the respondents using these brand names were considered as their own, as legally assigned. The Commissioner (Appeals) also held that Aksol Chemicals ceased to exist. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on this ground.3. Brand Name 'Emi' Dispute: The Revenue alleged that the brand name 'Emi' used by the respondents belonged to another company, MTPL. However, the Director of MTPL stated that she was not the owner of the brand name 'Emi.' Without additional evidence proving that the respondents were using another person's brand name, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order. Consequently, the appeals filed by Revenue were dismissed, as the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's contentions.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the legal transfer of brand names to the respondents and the lack of substantial evidence supporting the Revenue's claims regarding the use of brand names belonging to others. The judgment emphasized the importance of legal assignments and ownership in determining the entitlement to exemptions under the relevant notifications.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
