Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

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