TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 730
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....benefit of notification no 8/2003-CE dated 1st March 2003 intended for 'small scale industry', was found to be ineligible thereto as '(b) clearances of the specified goods which are used as inputs for further manufacture of any specified goods within the factory of production of the specified goods.' among the conditions enumerated in paragraph 3 of the said notification was breached by branding the goods as 'KALKI' belonging to one Mohanlal Gosaria and one Hemlata Gosrani whereas the appellant is a sole proprietorship of Shri Chandrakant G Gosaria. The original authority has held that '15. The notice is specific, whereas, the shown cause is peripheral. The Order-in-Original 21.03.2012 and the present notice is based on the decision of the Supreme court in Meyer Health, supra. The noticee speaks volume. But then, there is not a whisper about the Meyer Health or its inapplicability. By not speaking, they accept its applicability, since, the shown cause herein is much after communication of the Order-in-Original 21.03.2012. 16. The noticee cites many precedents. They list themselves out. However, they do not discuss the facts therein or submit that Meyer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lal Gosar Gosrani and Smt. Hemlata Gosrani has been assigned in the name of Shri Chandrakant Gosrani and this fact has been duly intimated in the affidavit filed before Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai. Affidavit of 11.05.2011 also refers to the earlier deed and says that it was assigned on 06.05.2011. Reliance by Commissioner on the affidavit of 2011 to deny the fact of assignment of the trade mark in the name of the appellant on 06.05.2011 is contrary to the above facts. 4.6 Further, even the Trade Marks authorities have issued the registration certificate in the name of the appellant which is reproduced below:- xxxxxx From the perusal of the above certificate of registration it is clear that the brand name KALKI was registered in the name of the appellant from 01.07.2009. 4.7 Commissioner has given no plausible reason for denying SSI exemption. 4.8 Appellant has relied upon the following decisions in his support: A. Arco Whitney Ltd. [2006 (193) ELT 217 (Tri-Mum)] "4. We do not find much force in the above reasoning. Scrutiny of the purchase deed show that the unit 'ARCO WHITNEY' was sold along with all its assets and prop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that both the entities are geographically located at different places, while it is the findings of the adjudicating authority that Shri Venkatesh was sole proprietor of Venky & Co. and held 90% shares of ICPL hence the clubbing of clearances needs to be done, we do not agree with the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority on this point. It is undisputed that Venky & Co. is a sole proprietorship firm and ICPL is a Private Ltd. firm. C.B.E. & C. vide Circular No. 6/92, dated 29-5-1992 referred the issue and a direction under Section 37B was issued by the Board which reads as under :- "2. The Board had then felt the position as mentioned above including in respect of Notification No. CER-8(5)-C.E., dated 1-3- 1956 was sufficient to deal with the interpretation under Notification No. 176/77, dated 18-6-1977. Now in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for the purpose of ensuring uniformity of levy of duties of excise, the Central Board of Excise and Customs have ordered that the general principles as mentioned above in the context of Notification No. 176/77, dated 18-6-1977 will be applicable to Notification No. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lic or private are separate entities and partnership firm is separate entity than the Ltd. Company. In the case in hand, the Limited Co. being separate entity and distinct from share holders, it cannot be said that Shri Venkatesh having 90% of shares in ICPL by virtue of being proprietor of Venky & Co., the clearances could be clubbed. In our view Revenue is arguing against their own circular which is incorrect. This view was taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Campion Plastic Industries Ltd. - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 189. Accordingly, we hold that the clearances effected by the sole proprietorship firm Vinky & Co. and ICPL cannot be clubbed for arriving at the total clearances of ICPL. This view of ours is also from the fact that both the entities are located at different places and registered with authorities under whose jurisdiction they fall. 7.3 As regards the using of Brand name "Irony" and "Terminator", we hold that the Brand name "Irony" was assigned to the appellant ICPL by Venky & Co. by an assigned deed. We find that the adjudicating authority in the impugned order in unnumbered paragraph at internal page No. 15 of order-inoriginal has recorded as ....