Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the denial of small scale industry exemption under Notification Nos. 175/86 and 1/93 was justified on the ground that the goods bore a brand name or trade name of another person, and whether the absence of a show cause notice rendered the denial unsustainable.
Analysis: The use of the expressions on the products was found not to establish a sufficient connection with any foreign company or its trade mark so as to attract the brand name bar in the exemption notifications. The reasoning adopted in the impugned order was held to be legally unsustainable because the record did not support the conclusion that the appellant was using another person's brand name in the manner contemplated by the notifications. The Tribunal also treated the absence of a specific show cause notice proposing denial of the exemption as a serious legal infirmity affecting the validity of the demand.
Conclusion: The denial of exemption was held to be unsustainable and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the exemption claimed by the appellant was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under the SSI notifications cannot be denied unless the use of a brand name or trade name of another person is clearly established and the proposed denial is supported by a proper show cause notice.