2009 (2) TMI 179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Tribunal while arriving in its finding that the applicants were not eligible for SSI exemption as the assignment of brand name would not make them owners of the brand and demand is not barred by limitation, has not taken the following submissions made by them during the course of hearing. (a) That as per para 4 of Notification Nos. 8/98-C.E., 8/99-C.E. and 8/2000-C.E., exemption is not available if the goods are manufactured bearing the brand name or Trade name of another person. As against this, in the present case, the goods were manufactured by Applicant bearing their own brand name in view of Deed of Assignment/Licence Agreement dated 16-11-95 and application for registration dated 18-8-99 with Trade Mark Registry. (b) That in su....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ech Systems Ltd. and Larger Bench of Tribunal vide order dated 8-12-99 [2000 (115) E.L.T. 238 (T-LB)} published in January 2008's E.L.T., held against the trade. Therefore, in view of the divergent views, extended period, and penalty provisions are not invocable. (j) In this connection, reference was made to the documents referred to and submission made in point no. (j) in their reply to appeal as reproduced below: "(j) without prejudice to the submissions made hereinabove, the respondents say that in any case, the demand is barred by limitation as extended period is not invocable in the absence of any suppression, mis-statement, etc., in support of which the following submissions are made: (a) The respondents had been filing CL-de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vat cum duty etc. was also claimed. (l) Submissions as to why penal provisions were not applicable were also made. 3. It has further been stated that the Tribunal has placed reliance on Apex Court decision in Prince Valves Industry, 2007 (8) S.T.R. 440 (S.C.) = 2006 (196) E.L.T. 141 (S.C.) and Tribunal judgment in Kenmore Vikas (India) P. Ltd., 2003 (158) E.L.T. 289 (Tri.-Del) which were not stated by either side during the course of hearing and these judgements have been fused without giving a fair chance to plead thereof applicability thereof. In view of this it was submitted that there is an apparent error in the order which needs to be rectified. 4. We have heard both sides. We find that all the averments made by the applicants....