TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....initially decided before the remand by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal by its order dated 18-12-2002, upheld the Commissioner's order in regard to the denial of small scale unit exemption to the appellant company and the demand of duty against it as well as the penalty imposed on it. The demand of interest was also confirmed. 3. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court by its order dated 24-8-2006, relying on the directions which were given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court earlier in commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh II v. Bhalla Enterprises, reported in 2004 (173) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.), remanded the matter for considering the alternative plea raised before the Supreme Court that the appellant had in the meantime obtained a certificate of registrati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... transferred to the appellant company from 1-4-2000. The allegation was that the appellant company during the period prior to 1-4-2000 and the sole proprietary concern from 1-4-2000 had been manufacturing and clearing the same class of excisable goods under the brand name of "REIZ" and had wrongly claimed the benefit of a small scale exemption notification by making false declarations that the brand name of any other person was not affixed on their products. The Commissioner held that a brand name "REIZ" belonged to the sole proprietary concern M/s. REIZ Enterprises during the period 1996-2000, and it was sold to the appellant company REPL on 30-3-2000 and, therefore, owned by the appellant after 31-3-2000. It was held that since the brand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en manufacturing and clearing the same class of excisable goods under the brand name of "REIZ" and had wrongly claimed the benefit of a small exemption notification by making false declarations that brand name of any other person was not affixed on their products. The Commissioner held that a brand name "REIZ" belonged to the sole proprietary concern M/s. REIZ Enterprises during the period 1996-2000 and it was sold to the appellant company REPL on 30-3-2000 and therefore, owned by the appellant after 31-3-2000. It was held that since the brand name "REIZ" be longed to the sole proprietary concern M/s REIZ Enterprises during the period from 1996-97 to 30-3-2000, the appellant company was not entitled to the SSI exemption under the provisions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would relate back so as to cover the entire period of the show cause notice. As regards the issue of limitation, it was submitted that in the declarations made by the appellant, the disclosure about their trademark was already made all throughout the period under the show cause notice and therefore, the show cause notice issued on 3-5-2001 was beyond the prescribed period of one year. Moreover, since the declarations were already made about the use of the trademark "REIZ", there was no question of invoking the extended period on the ground of suppression. 8. The learned Authorized Representative for the department, on the other hand, supported the reasoning and findings of the Commissioner and strongly contended that once the assessee man....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate was the deemed date of registration as per the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The certificate on which reliance is placed by the appellant has been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of that Act under which the Registrar is empowered to issue a certificate in the said prescribed form. The registration of trade mark gives to the registered proprietor of such trade mark the exclusive right to use the same in relation to the goods in respect of which it is registered, subject to any conditions and limitations to which the registration is made. Such registration is to be prima facie evidence of validity thereof. In the present case, the evidence supported by registration of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered in the name of the sole proprietary concern M/s. REIZ Enterprises, it cannot be said that the appellant in whose name also the trademark came to be registered by virtue of the registration certificate dated 11-11-2003, which registration related back from 1-6-1995, was not entitled to the benefit of the SSI notification in respect of the goods manufactured by it under its own trademark. 11. It is pointed out that in a similar situation, where the matter was remanded, as noted by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the remand order, and the Tribunal directed to rehear the matter in respect of the exemption under the notification claimed by SSI unit which had similarly obtained registration of the trademark subsequently [Bhalla Enterprises....