2015 (5) TMI 95

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n. During inquiry, the department found that these two brand names were originally owned by M/s. Diamond Water Proof Compound (P) Ltd., who had allowed the use of these brand names by M/s.Diamond Retail Marl Ltd under two separate assignment deeds. M/s. Diamond Trade Mart Ltd., in turn, under an assignment deed had allowed the appellant to use these brand names and this assignment deed was not registered with the Registrar of Trade Mark. The department was of the view that since the appellant do not own the brand names, they would not he eligible for SSI exemption. It is on this basis that the Commissioner by the impugned order dated 3.4.2014 confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 52,74,336.- against the appellant for the period 1.9.2011 to 2.3.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the ease of GEM Footwear Vs. CCE reported in 2009 (245)ELT 24 (Delhi), that the appellant thus have strong prima facie case in their favour and that since the appellant have already paid an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs during investigation, in the circumstance of the case, the amount already paid may be considered sufficient for compliance with the provisions of Section 35 F and the requirement of pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty demand, interest and penalty may be waived for hearing of the appeal and recovery thereof may be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 4. Shri V.P. Batra, ld. Departmental Representative, opposed the stay application by reiterating the findings of the commi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....partment has not identified as to whom these brand names belong while according to the Appellant these brand names do not belong to anybody. In view of this position, we are of the prima facie view that the goods on which these brand names have been used, cannot be denied the benefit of the SSI exemption. 8. As regards the goods on which the brand name "Decotouch" and "Diamond Gold" have been used, the department's case against the appellant is that these brand names do not belong to Appellant but are registered in the name of M/s. Diamond Water Proof Compound Ltd., who have assigned these brand names under two assessment deeds to M/s. Diamond Retail Mart and M/s.Diamond Retail Mart, in turn, has assigned these brand names to the app....