Brand name in SSI exemption Held that - the proprietor of the appellant firm has admitted that they have used TECON brand also in addition to their brand. In these circumstances, decision of the lower authority not to allow cross examination cannot be found fault with. According to the definition of brand name or trade name in the notification extending exemption benefit to the SSI unit, brand name or trade name need not have been registered. What is required is that it should have been used by the owner and regularly being used. In this case, there is no dispute that brand name TECON was being used by the owner and there is also no dispute that Techdrive Engineering is the owner - View that TECON that it is not a brand name is not accepted. - assessee is not the owner - Decided against the assessee. Limitation period - Demand is time barred in respect of Sr.No.1 to the Annexure of show-cause notice dated 28/05/2004 - Five years have to be counted from this date and show-cause notice was issued on 08/07/2009 which is more than five years Held that - Statement was recorded only in the year 2009 and, therefore, it cannot be said that investigation did not complete earlier As per Hon ble High Court of Gujarat decision in Neminath 2010 (4) TMI 631 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT clearly provides that once suppression/misdeclaration is proved, extended period can be invoked. Cum duty price Held that - If duty is charged later the amount recovered as per invoice has to be treated as cum duty Appeal rejected - Matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for the limited purpose of working out cum duty realization, amount of duty to be demanded and penalty to be imposed Decided against the Assessee. .............................. Central Excise - Case Law
↧