TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1095
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sued on 06/01/1994, 27/09/1994, 29/07/1994 and 28/10/1994, in the second round of litigation, the re-adjudication order has covered by order dated 30/11/2005 one more show-cause notice issued on 30/06/1995 during pendency of the re-adjudication. 2. Initially against the decision of learned adjudicating authority made on 05/06/1995 against above said four show cause notices, Revenue came in appeals before the Tribunal in the first round which was decided by order dated 02/01/2002. The dispute before the Tribunal was on the classification of the goods as to whether the goods conform to Indian Standard and whether the goods manufactured were branded or not. On assessment of the factual situation and evidence, Tribunal in para 3 of its order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; 506CPS No 551-CMSP 1551-CMSP 1013CSSO/R 1501-CFIS 1502-CDPF 410-CCU 2021-CDPMS 3031-CDPS 2023-CSOD 551-CMS 1551-CMS 5002-CPSO 5002-CPSOB 5001-CPDS 5001-CPDSB 5005-CPDD &nb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndards Act, 1986. 2.3. Apart from the above three conditions, the overriding condition of the Notification No.1/89-CE dated 01/03/1989 as amended by Notification No.155/89 dated 06/07/1989 and further amended by notification no.192/89 dated 03/11/1989 is that the exemption is not available to the goods if above described goods manufactured are affixed with a brand-name or trade-name (whether registered or not) of any other person or manufacturer. 2.4. It was further contended by assessee that learned adjudicating authority held that certain goods were in conformity with ISI standard without brand-name. The appellant itself being the owner of the brand name, under an assignment deed, the brand name was not of a different person. Such v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said goods with a brand name or trade name (whether registered or not) of any other person or manufacturer.' 4. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 5. We are not provided with material to appreciate whether the appellant-assessee was the owner of the brand-name. The assignment deed may be of different formats. But its contents are relevant. Therefore, it is primary duty of the adjudicating authority to examine the contents of the assignment deed thoroughly and also enquire as to whether by virtue of the assignment deed, the brand name was owned by the assessee exclusively. On the basis of outcome of his examination and enquiry, he shall be in a position to reach to a proper conclusion and decide notification benefit, if any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from 08/09/1989 till 31/03/1994. He again issued a notice on 27/09/1994 covering the same period from 28/09/1989 to 31/03/1993 although that may be for different goods and different periods are covered. Authority did not stop there. He issued further notice on 30/06/1995 covering the period from 01/08/1994 to 31/03/1995. This has resulted in multiplicity of litigation. He should state the reasons of issuance of such multiple notices specifically against each such notice and covering relevant period in his re-adjudication order. The chronology of notices, reminds the principles laid down in Nizam Sugar Factory v. Collector of Central Excise, AP 2008 (9) STR 314 (SC) and Hyderabad Polymers (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad ....