TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Dispute over 'Fruity Sweets' brand leads to duty exemption ruling appeal. Commissioner's decision partially overturned.</h1> The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai addressed a case involving a partnership firm manufacturing 'Fruity Sweets' using a brand name not owned by them, ... SSI Exemption - Brand name - Demand - Limitation - Remand - Confiscation - Penalty Issues involved: Classification of 'Fruity Sweets' under Ch. Heading 1704.90, use of brand name 'Mapro, Mahableshwar' not owned by appellants, denial of exemption under Notification No. 1/93, dt. 28-2-93 as amended under Notification No. 59/94, dt. 1-3-94, invocation of extended period for duty demand, penalty imposition under Rule 173Q, confiscation of Plant and Machinery.Summary:1. The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai addressed the case of a partnership firm manufacturing 'Fruity Sweets' under Ch. Heading 1704.90, using the brand name 'Mapro, Mahableshwar' not owned by them, leading to a dispute regarding exemption eligibility under Notifications. The Superintendent seized the sweets due to brand name ownership issues. The Commissioner upheld duty demand and penalty imposition citing non-disclosure of brand name usage and intent to evade duty, ordering confiscation of Plant and Machinery.2. The Commissioner's decision was based on the usage of another entity's brand name on goods not manufactured by the brand owner, invoking extended period for duty demand. The Tribunal, however, referred to a Madras High Court case and found no merit to interfere with the denial of exemption. The Tribunal disagreed with the extended period invocation and upheld duty demand only for March '1995, remanding the matter for reworking the demand.3. The Tribunal noted the non-disclosure of brand name usage by the appellants but found no justification for the extended period invocation. Referring to a Larger Bench decision, the Tribunal set aside the penalty and confiscation of Plant and Machinery, allowing the appeal and remanding the case for re-determination of duty for March '1995.4. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty and confiscation orders, and remanded the case for re-determination of duty for March '1995.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
