TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 174
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he clearances of the goods actually manufactured by them in the name of M/s. Riat Machine Tools and M/s. Machinery Manufacturing Company which did not have any facility whatsoever for the manufacture of the goods claimed to have been manufactured and cleared by them. It is on this basis that the Commissioner vide order-in-original No. 15/Ldh/2009 dated 14-1-2010 confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 70,85,046/- against the appellant alongwith interest and beside this, imposed penalty of equal amount i.e. Rs. 70,85,046/- on the appellant company and also another penalty of same amount on Shri Davinder Singh, Director of the appellant company. The appellants filed appeals alongwith stay applications against this order. The stay applications were decided by Order No. 492-493/2011-EX, dated 21-4-2011 by which the appellant company was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 32,00,000/- in addition to amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- already deposited by them during the investigation, within a period of eight weeks and report compliance on 19-8-2011. On pre-deposit of this amount within the stipulated period, the requirement of pre-deposit of balance amount of duty demand, interest and penalty from the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iat Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. can use the brand name RIAT which is owned by both the Directors, that w.e.f. 17-6-2006 the brand name RIAT was formerly assigned to the appellant company by assignment deed dated 17-6-2006 and thereafter it could not be said that the appellant company was using the brand name of other person, that no finding has been given by the Tribunal in the stay order on this point, that the bulk of the duty demand is also time barred as there is no evidence of wilful misstatement or suppression of fact with intent to evade the payment of duty on the part of the appellants, and that the appellants are facing financial hardship and this aspect has also not been considered in the stay order dated 21-4-2011. Shri Anand also pleaded that in pursuance of an interim order dated 25-11-2011 in respect of miscellaneous application they have deposited an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- to show their willingness to cooperate with the Department. He, therefore, pleaded that with the deposit of this Rs. 10,00,000/- the total amount already deposited by them including an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- during the period of investigation, would be Rs. 18,00,000/- and that this amount may be c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bsence of the assessee being the owner of a particular brand name, merely on the basis of an assignment deed, he cannot be treated as the owner of the brand name for the purpose of SSI exemption, that the order dated 21-4-2011 was not ex-parte, as both the parties has been heard on 6-12-2010 and the Tribunal had directed the appellant to file written submissions within three weeks and department was also given two weeks to file the written submissions, that in view of this, the Tribunal's order cannot be called as ex-parte order, that there are no grounds for modification of the stay order dated 21-4-2011, that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore-III v. McDowell & Co. Ltd. reported in 2005 (186) E.L.T. 145 (Kar.) and CC, Bangalore v. United Telecom Ltd. reported in 2006 (198) E.L.T. 12 (Kar.) has categorically held that Tribunal has no powers to recall or modify the stay order and that in view of this, there is no merit in the appellant's plea for the modification of the stay order dated 21-4-2011. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. We find that the stay matter had come up for hearing on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n shown in the name of M/s. Riat Machine Tools which is claimed to have been dissolved, it is doubtful as to whether the appellant's claim regarding dissolving of the firm is correct. If M/s. Riat Machine Tools still exists, even though its partners have floated a private limited company M/s. Riat Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd., the new private limited company M/s. Riat Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. cannot be treated as owner of the brand name RIAT. Even the appellant's plea that in view of assignment deed 17-6-2006 assigning the brand name RIAT to M/s. Riat Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd., w.e.f. 17-6-2006, the appellant company should be treated as owner of the brand name for the purpose of SSI exemption and, hence, would be eligible for SSI exemption is difficult to accept in view of the Tribunal's judgment in the case of VEE GEE Faucets P. Ltd. v. CC, Gurgaon (supra). In view of the above discussion, so far as duty demand of Rs. 59,43,884/- is concerned, the appellant do not have prima facie case and there does not appear to be any ground for taking a view different from that taken in the stay order dated 21-4-2011. Though the appellant pleaded financial hardship no evidence in this regard has been....