TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 537
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal itself inasmuch as the authorisation letter was not signed by the Committee of Commissioners but was signed by the Commissioner, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits inasmuch as we find that the issue stands covered by the precedent decision. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the Central Excise staff visited the factory premises of the party on 27-10-2001 and it was found that the party was using the brand name "ZOLOTO-m" on the Pipe Fittings manufactured by them under the SSI exemption notification in operation at the relevant time. In terms of the SSI notification, exemption to the specified goods was not admissible, if the goods bore the 'brand name' or 'trade name' of another person. On physical verification, the staff foun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, 2001. 7. Being aggrieved, the party filed an appeal with Commissioner (Appeals). 8. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that trade mark "ZOLOTO-m" has been registered in their name under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 of Govt. of India vide Trade Mark No. 933389 dated 21-6-2000 and thus, have become liable for exemption under Notification No. 8/2000, dated 1-3-2000. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also held that though the Registration Certificate was issued by the Competent Authority on 18-1-2005, the party is entitled for exemption w.e.f. the date of application, i.e.. 21-6-2000, as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Whale Stationery Products Ltd. reported in 2004 (168) E.L.T. 405. 9. Commissioner (Appeals) also relied upon the Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Commissioner (Appeals), benefit of Notification would be applicable only when the assessee get their trade name registered. Inasmuch as in the present appeal, the registration was granted only on 18-1-2005, though the respondent applied for the same on 21-6-2000, the benefit of SSI exemption would be applicable only w.e.f. 18-1-2005. 14. We find no merits in the above contention of the Revenue. Relying on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahaan Dairies, does not advance the Revenue's case inasmuch as in that case there was no issue about the date of applicability of registration, i.e., whether from the date of issuance of certificate or from the date of application. The Tribunal's decision admittedly in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication as clearly held by the CESTAT in the case of Whale Stationery Products Ltd. reported in 2004 (168) E.L.T. 405 wherein it has been held that : The second contention of the appellant is that their demand in question is time-barred inasmuch as they have filed the declaration claiming exemption on 29-2-2000 and mentioning the use of their trade name "ZOLOTO-m". Since the use of brand name "ZOLOTO-m" was well within the knowledge of the department as such there is no question of suppression of the facts. Not only this the owner of the brand name "ZOLOTO" also falls within the Jurisdiction of the same Central Excise Division, as such the issue was amply clear to the department. I agree with the above contention of the appellant and th....