UNIVERSAL DETERGENTS (P.) LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.
LAWS(CE)-2015-2-41
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 11,2015

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Rakesh Kumar, J. - (1.)THE appellant are manufacturers of detergent. The period of dispute in this case is from January to March, 1994 and October to December 1994. The appellant during the period of dispute were availing SSI exemption and were using among other brand names, the brand name "Blue Dot" on their goods. The Department seeks to deny the SSI exemption on the goods affixed with the brand name "Blue Dot" on the ground that this brand name belongs to another person M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P.) Ltd., Kanpur. It is on this basis that the Assistant Commissioner vide Order -in -Original dated 12 -5 -1998 confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 4,40,138/ - against the appellant. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (Appeals) against this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order -in -Appeal dated 16 -12 -2005 dismissed the appeal. Against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals), this appeal has been filed. Heard both the sides.
(2.)SHRI Ankit Vishnoi, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the brand name 'Blue Dot', along with the other brand name "Blue", "Blue Spot" and "Blue lines" belong to the appellant, that the Department's allegation is that the brand name "Blue Dot" is owned by M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P.) Ltd., Kanpur, but in this regard, no evidence has been produced by the Department, that on 1 -4 -1992, the appellant by a Deed of Assignment had assigned the brand name "Blue Dot" to M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P.) Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 50,000/ -, but on the same day, due to some dispute, this Assignment Deed was cancelled, that in view of this, the appellant still remain the owner of the brand name Blue Dot, that if the Department alleges that the brand name Blue Dot is owned by M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P.) Ltd., the burden of proof in this regard is on the Department, but no such evidence has been produced, that earlier, the Joint Commissioner vide order -in -original dated 31 -8 -2001 had confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 9,12,515/ - for the period from July 1994 to September 1994 and from October 1994 to December 1994 and the duty demand of Rs. 3,78,241/ - pertains to October 1994 to December 1994 period, that same demand is also included in the order -in -original dated 12 -5 -1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner which is the subject matter of this dispute, that against the Joint Commissioner's order dated 31 -8 -2001, the appellant had filed an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order -in -original dated 28 -6 -2004 had set aside the Joint Commissioner's order holding that the appellant are eligible for SSI benefit in respect of the Blue Dot Detergent Powder as M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P.) Ltd. who are alleged to be the owner of the brand name have not claimed the ownership of the brand name and the benefit of doubt has been given to the appellant, that no appeal has been filed by the Department against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and that in view of this, the impugned order is not correct.
Shri Ranjan Khanna, the learned DR, defended the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and pleaded that the Deed of Assignment dated 1 -4 -1992 clearly mentions that by this Assignment Deed, the appellant had assigned this brand name and transferred it to M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P.). Ltd. and, therefore, w.e.f. 1 -4 -1992 it is M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P.) Ltd. who were owner of the brand, that though there is an another agreement bearing the same date - 1 -4 -1992, which mentions that the Assignment Deed of 1 -4 -1992 between the appellant and M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P.) Ltd. has been cancelled on account of some dispute between them, this cancellation deed is not notarized and, hence, no cognizance can be taken of the same, and that the cancellation agreement has not been produced before original Adjudicating Authority or before the 1st Appellate Authority. He emphasised that from the Assignment Deed it is very clear that earlier the appellant were the owner of the brand name of Blue Dot, but w.e.f. 1 -4 -1992 the brand name has been transferred to M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P.) Ltd. and hence during the period of dispute, the appellant were no longer the owner of the brand name and accordingly when the owner of this brand name is M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P.) Ltd., the goods affixed with brand name "Blue Dot" were not be eligible for the SSI exemption. He also pointed out to the observation in the Order -in -Original mentioning that the appellant themselves under their letter dated 14 -9 -1994 to the Department had informed that the Blue Dot is the registered brand name of M/s. Standard Sulphonators (P.) Ltd. He therefore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

(3.)WE have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.