Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/CASE LAW/2016-17/3046

Eligibility of SSI exemption in case of purchase of brand name of other person
Case: COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & S.T., AHMEDABAD-I Vs HARSH INDUSTRIES
Citation: 2015 (325) E.L.T. 889 (Tri. - Ahmd.)
Issue: Eligibility of SSI exemption in case of purchase of brand name of other person
Brief Facts: The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the adjudication order was set aside.
The respondents assessee were engaged in the manufacture of Power Driven Water Pumps. A show cause notice dated 8-2-2006 was issued, proposing demand of duty alongwith interest and to impose penalty for the period 1-4-2003 to November, 2005 on the ground the respondents wrongly availed SSI exemption and cleared the goods bearing the brand name of the other person. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of duty along with interest and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order.
Appellant’s Contention: The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue submits that the respondents had not produced the Deed of Assignment for use of brand name during the investigation. It was only placed by them in reply to the show cause notice. It is further submitted that the respondents shown this amount as royalty in the income-tax return, which was revised after investigation. He further submits that the respondent applied for change of ownership to the Trade Mark authority. It is his contention that this document cannot be accepted as they have not taken place at the time of investigation by the Department. So, the demand of duty is liable to be upheld. It is also submitted that one of the partner of the respondent is party of brand name holders.
Respondent’s Contention: The learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent submits that Shri Pravinbhai Manilal Ajmera, Proprietor of M/s. Harsh Traders in his statement dated 12-1-2006, stated that M/s. Harsh Traders entered into Deed of Assignment with M/s. Harsh Industries to assign and use the trade mark in favour of the respondent company. So, the respondent disclosed during investigation. It is further submitted that the income-tax authority had accepted the revised return and the Central Excise department cannot go against the respondent. He further submits that Deed of Assignment was verified by the investigating officer, which is evident from the cross-examination of the concerned officer. The main argument of the respondent company is that trade mark authority accepted the brand name in favour of the respondent from 28-9-2000. In this context, the learned Counsel placed a certified copy of the trade mark certificate.
Reasoning of Judgement: They find that Trade Mark authority by Order No. TM-46/70/381, dated 31-12-2008, certified that M/s. Harsh Industries, amongst others are registered as subsequent proprietor of Trade Mark “HARSH” as from 28-9-2000 by virtue of Deed of Assignment dated 31-3-2001. As the Trade Mark authority accepted that respondent is proprietor of Trade Mark “HARSH” from 28-9-2000, then the demand of duty for the period 2003-04 to 2004-2005 on this ground is not sustainable. They have also noticed that the submissions of the Revenue before the Tribunal were refuted by the respondent. Hence, there is no need to discuss all these things.
In view of the above discussion, they do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected and uphold the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
Decision: Appeal Rejected
Comment: The case is related to availment of SSI Exemption and Use of Brand Name. Earlier the assessee was using the brand name of other person. Thereafter, the Trade Mark Authority vide order dated 31-12-2008 certified that assessee registered as subsequent proprietor of impugned brand name from 28-9-2000 .
Hence with effect from 31.12.2008 the assessee became the owner of the Brand Name and therefore he is eligible for SSI exemption
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com