2007 (6) TMI 99

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....orted in 2004 (60) RLT 64 has already held that the extended time-limit is not invokable if there are conflicting judgments. In this context, it is relevant to note that both my learned brothers have returned a unanimous verdict of withdrawal of penalty against the assessee, having observed the existence of such conflicting pronouncements. If Tribunals and other judicial fora could be divided on an issue, despite the ready availability of well stocked libraries of law and cerebral counsels at their disposal, how could the decision taken by a layman assessee of a small scale outfit could be treated as harbouring mala fide particularly where there is no supporting evidence against them, as in the present case? 3. As regards the first issue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... exemption available). (ii) Ample Industries & Anr. v. C.C.E., Rajkot - 2007 (80) R.L.T. 293 (CESTAT-Ahbad.) (No evidence of brand name being owned by a particular person-benefit on notification not deniable). (iii) C.C.E., Cochin v. Geo Engineering Works - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 463 (Tri.-Bang.) (It cannot be assumed that impugned brand name used by assessee belonged to another person, and benefit of exemption cannot be denied on such assumption). (iv) Sujaya Pipes Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C.E., Belgaum - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 370 (Tri-Bang.) (Burden of proof to show that the term used is a brand name lies on Revenue) (v) C.C.E., Delhi-II v. Satyam Enterprises - 2004 (168) E.L.T. 379 (Tribunal) =2004 (63) R.L.T. 242 (CESTAT-Del.) (Revenue has not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dicate any such connection, it would he entitled to the benefit of exemption. An assessee would also be entitled to the benefit of the exemption if the brand name belongs to the assessee himself although someone else may be equally entitled to such name" 3.5 The learned authorized representative for the department states that the brand name "National" is an international and reputed brand name and there is no need to identify any person to whom such a brand name belongs to, as it is well known that "National" is an international brand name. He relies upon this Tribunal's larger bench decision in Namtech Systems & Ors. v. C.C.E., Bangalore & Ors.- 2000(115) E.L.T. 238 (Tribunal) = 2000 (36) R.L.T. 35 (CEGAT-L.B.) in which it was held that....