TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 388
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Dot" on their goods. The Department seeks to deny the SSI exemption on the goods affixed with the brand name "Blue Dot" on the ground that this brand name belongs to another person M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd., Kanpur. It is on this basis that the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 12-5-1998 confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 4,40,138/- against the appellant. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 16-12-2005 dismissed the appeal. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Ankit Vishnoi, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the brand n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aside the Joint Commissioner's order holding that the appellant are eligible for SSI benefit in respect of the Blue Dot Detergent Powder as M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd. who are alleged to be the owner of the brand name have not claimed the ownership of the brand name and the benefit of doubt has been given to the appellant, that no appeal has been filed by the Department against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri Ranjan Khanna, the learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and pleaded that the Deed of Assignment dated 1-4-1992 clearly mentions that by this Assignment Deed, the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The period of demand in this case is from January 1994 to March 1994 and October 1994 to December 1994. The duty demand for the period from October 1994 to December 1994 is Rs. 3,78,241/- and the remaining amount of Rs. 62,897/- out of the total duty demand of Rs. 4,41,138/- pertains to January-March 1994 period and both the demands are on the basis of denial of SSI exemption in respect of the goods bearing the brand name Blue Dot on the ground that the brand name Blue Dot does not belong to appellant and it belongs to M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd. However, it is seen that the show cause notice for October 1994 to December 199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wever, other than the letter dated 14-9-1994 of the appellant which is not on record, there is no other evidence in this regard. On the contrary there is an agreement dated 1-4-1992 between the appellant and M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd. placed on record according to which the brand name Blue Dot is owned by the appellant and it had been transferred and assigned under a Deed of Assignment to M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd. and there is another agreement of the same date which cancelled the Assignment Deed, as a result of which the appellant remain the owner of the brand. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) does not clarify this aspect, as according to the findings of Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order, the owner of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d does not empower M/s. Universal Detergent to avail the exemption under Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-93. According to deed M/s. Universal Detergent are Assignors and M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd., are Assignees and for the transfer of the trade marks along with the goodwill of business concerned it has been mentioned in the deed that "The Assignor (M/s Universal Detergent) hereby assigns and transfer unto the Assignees (M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P) Ltd.,) all the said trademarks along with the goodwill of the business". Thus trademarks and goodwill of the business has been transferred from M/s. Universal Detergent (Assigner) to M/s. Standard Sulphonator (Assignees), but this is ab initio wrong because M/s. Universal Detergent ....