Cce, Jalandhar vs M/S.Akal Agricultural Industries

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal20 January 2015

CitationAppeal No. E/1510/2006-Ex (DB)

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A brand name registered under the Trade Marks Act with effect from a retrospective date is treated as belonging to the registered proprietor from that date, so that the brand-name condition for denying the small-scale industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE must be assessed by reference to the retrospective date of registration, and not the date of the certificate's issuance; where the revenue does not dispute the effective date of registration, the Tribunal will not interfere with the appellate authority's order setting aside the demand on that basis.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066CIRCUIT BENCH AT CHANDIGARHAppeal No. E/1510/2006-Ex (DB)

(Arising out of OIA No.46/CE/Jal/2006 dt.31.1.2006 passed by CCE (Appeals), Jalandhar)

CCE, Jalandhar Appellants

Vs.

M/s.Akal Agricultural Industries Respondent

Appearance:

Appellant: Shri Y.P.Sharma, Authorised Representative

Respondent: Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate

Honble Mr.P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)

Honble Mr.P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

seen

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Coram: Honble Mr. P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)

Honble Mr.P.S.Pruthi, Member(Technical)

Date of Hearing/decision: 20.01.2015

FINAL ORDER NO.50955/2015

PER: P.K.DAS

During the period from 22.12.2003 to 24.11.2004, the respondent cleared the goods under the brand name SANT. According to the Revenue, the said brand name was not registered in the Respondents name. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.4,62,565/- alongwith interest and imposed penalty and also imposed redemption fine on the seized goods denying the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003. Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication Order.

3. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), we find that Registrar of Trade Mark authority issued certificate of Registration on 25.01.2005, with effect from 02.04.1996 in favour of the Respondent. The brand name SANT is belonged to the respondent with effect from 2.4.1996 in respect of pipe fitting.

4. The main contention of the Authorized Representative for the Revenue is that the registering authority had not issued the certificate retrospectively. We find that the Revenue had not disputed the fact that registering authority registered the brand name SANT with effect from 2.4.1996. So, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

(Pronounced in the court)

(P.S.PRUTHI) (P.K.DAS)

MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free