2018 (4) TMI 1451 – CESTAT CHANDIGARH – TMI – SSI exemption – use of Brand name of third party – N/N. 8/03-CE dated 01.03.2003 – Confiscation – redemption fine – penalty – Held that: – Although, the appellant is exporting the said goods but the appellant has not followed any procedure i.e. payment of duty, and claiming the rebate claim or goods have been exported under bond.
–
The fact is on record that out of total value of the goods of ₹ 4,76,080/- the goods worth ₹ 2,83,192/- are agriculture equipments on which, no duty is payable by the appellant – the total value of duty payable on the goods after abatement of ₹ 1,35,022/-, therefore, redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant are on higher side, and ar
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
hey are not entitled to avail benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 8/03-CE dated 01.03.2003. Consequently, by denying the benefit of SSI exemption Notification, it goods were seized and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty. Against the said order, the appellant is before me. 3. The ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that initially the appellant was partner in the firm namely M/s Noble Enterprises who is the owner of Five Star brand name. But after exiting from the said firm, the appellant started manufacturing their own goods under the brand name 'Five Star Super Spare which is not similar to Five Star and Five Star Super Spare is the brand of the appellant only, therefore, they wer
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
rder and submits that the appellant has not come out with an evidence that the goods in question are meant for export. Moreover, it has not been coming out whether the appellant is manufacturer of agriculture equipments or not? As the appellant was using the brand name of third party, therefore, they are not entitled for benefit of SSI exemption notification. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On consideration of submissions made by both the sides, I find that the issue whether the appellant is using the brand name of third party has not been contested by the appellant, therefore, the appeal is taken up for consideration only on the issue of imposition of redemption fine and penalty. 7. As the appellant is using the bra
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =