TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 343
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the period October 2005 to 16.07.2007. The appellant was clearing the above mentioned excisable goods by availing SSI Exemption. Revenue s case is that the brand name Ribbons and Balloons is owned by M/s. Bharat Cafi Pvt. Ltd. and therefore the brand name does not belong to the appellant and they are not entitled to claim the benefit of SSI Exemption under Notification No.8/2003 dated 01.03.2003 as amended. A demand notice was issued to the appellant on 03.06.2009 invoking extended period of limitation. The same was adjudicated by the original authority wherein a demand of Rs. 35,44,512/- was confirmed, interest under Section 11AB was also confirmed and a penalty of an amount equivalent to duty was also imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act 1944. Aggrieved by the said order the appellant filed an appeal. First appellate authority upheld the order of the adjudicating authority and the appeal was rejected. The appellant is before this Tribunal against the said order of the first appellate authority. 2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the brand name Ribbons and Balloons belongs to the appellant only and the goods ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assigned to the appellant by an Agreement dated 21.09.2005 between the appellant and M/s. Bharat Cafi Pvt. Ltd. The said documents very clearly brings out that the said brand name belongs to M/s. Bharat Cafi Pvt. Ltd., and not to the appellant. Learned A.R. quoted the Hon ble Supreme Court s decision in the case of CCE vs. ACE Auto Comp. Ltd. 2011 (263) ELT 3 (S.C.), CCE Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders 2004 (165) ELT 481 (S.C.) and CCE v. Mahaan Dairies 2004 (166) ELT 23 (S.C.) and he stated in view of the above decisions there can be no doubt that the appellant was using the brand name and the brand name undoubtedly belongs to M/s. Bharat Cafi Pvt. Ltd. and hence appellant was having brand name of other person therefore, the appellants are not entitled to SSI Exemption under Notification 8/2003. Learned A.R. also stated that the appellant s contention that extended period of limitation cannot be invoked is incorrect as they did not take the registration immediately and they did not inform anything about their activities. The inquiries were started by the Revenue in June 2006 itself and during the preliminary enquiry appellant informed that they were using the brand name of&nbs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Pvt. Ltd. The point advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that M/s. Bharat Cafi Pvt. Ltd., were neither manufacturer nor seller nor are trader and therefore cannot be said that the said brand name belongs to them. We are not impressed with this argument. Undoubtedly M/s. Bharat Cafi Pvt. Ltd. has applied for the registration of the brand name with the Trade Mark authorities and the said application was made on 22.09.2005. The said application is for the commodities being manufactured by the appellant. Further the said Company has passed a resolution on 20.09.2005 to assign the said brand name to the appellant and in pursuance to the said resolution, deed of assignment by assailment was prepared by M/s. Bharat Cafi Pvt. Ltd. in the name of the appellant and the same was signed by both and notarized on 21.09.2005. After hearing was over, Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted further written submissions. In the said submissions it is claimed that an application has been made on 13.11.2006 wherein Trade Mark Authority was requested for correction of clerical error in their application and as per the said application the name of the applicant was to be changed as Mr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visit of the Central Excise Officers to the said unit. We also find that after the said letter Proprietor of the appellant Co. was summoned but he did not respond on some or the other pretext and it was after collecting the detailed information the Revenue officer took further steps in the investigation during 2007. Thus the said letter was sent to the department during the course of investigation of the case and therefore the appellant cannot claim that he had informed the department. We also note that in the said letter it clearly suppresses the fact that brand name of Ribbons and Balloons belongs to M/s. Bharat Cafi Pvt. Ltd., and appellant is using the same consequence to a deed of agreement. We are in agreement with the learned A.R. s contention that the Proprietor of the appellant firm is one of the Directors in M/s. Bharat Cafi Pvt. Ltd. and is the main promoter and hence it cannot be assumed that the appellant s firm was not aware of the fact that the said brand name belongs to M/s. Bharat Cafi Pvt. Ltd. In fact, conduct of the appellant proves his willful intention to evade duty. Under the circumstances, we hold that extended period of limitation is correctly i....