July 1997 to August 2002 are barred by limitation or that there was no justification in the present facts to impose any penalty upon the appellant. The impugned order dated 9 April 2014 is vitiated to the extent it does not consider and deal with the above submissions of the appellant. On merits also the impugned order dated 9 April 2013 of the Tribunal does not deal with/consider the submissions of the appellant based on letters dated 16 September 2002 and 26 March 2004 received from foreign collaborator stating that the brand name “Seal Jet” is not their band name. This evidence of the appellant was also not considered in the impugned order dated 9 April 2014 of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is required as a final fact finding authority to determine on the basis of evidence before it whether the brand name “Seal jet” used by appellant does belong to a foreign company as alleged by the revenue. There is no finding on the above issue. The impugned order has proceeded on the basis that “Seal jet” is a brand name belonging to a foreign company and dealt with a legal issue that the registration of a brand name would only taken effect for the purpose of excise duty from the date of the registration of the Mark and would not relate back to the date of application for registration as otherwise available under the Trade Mark Act. However, before deciding the aforesaid legal position it was required of the Tribunal to first determine whether or not brand name “Seal Jet” was belonging of a foreign company. In view of the above without considering the proposed questions of law raised by the appellant at this stage, we set aside the impugned order of of the Tribunal and remand the same to it to pass a fresh order after considering the issue of limitation, penalty and whether the brand name “Seal jet” belongs to a foreign company.
