Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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