The Delhi High Court dismissed the Commissioner of Central Excise's appeal against a CESTAT order granting Small Scale Industry exemption. The Court noted the Department failed to raise trademark issues before the Tribunal and held no substantial question of law arose.
The appeal and the application for stay are dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE DELHI –I ..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Sonia Sharma, Senior Standing counsel.
versus
THE HEELS & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Mr. Pravesh Bahuguna and Mr. Jitin Singhal, Advocates.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
O R D E R % 08.02.2016
CEAC 2/2016 & CM No. 3910/2016 (for stay)
consequential Order-in-Original passed on 25th September 2009. Against that order, the Respondents went in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who by an order dated 9th July 2010 allowed the appeal. The specific finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) was “it is very much clear that it is for the department to establish that the brand names being used belonged to some other persons and it has not been indicated or proved that the brand names other than 'THE HEELS' belonged to some other person as no Trade Mark Registration or some other document proving the ownership of the impugned brand names by some other persons have been placed on record while making allegations in the show cause notice”.
Court, give rise to any substantial question of law. This is irrespective of the preliminary objection of the Respondent on the maintainability of the present appeal on the ground that the issue arising from the impugned order of the CESTAT concerns payment of duty and, therefore, an appeal is maintainable only before the Supreme Court.
S. MURALIDHAR, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
FEBRUARY 08, 2016 dn
CEAC No. 2/2016
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal against the CESTAT order is maintainable given the purported lack of substantial question of law.
Whether the Department can be permitted to raise a new ground based on trademark registration documents eight years after the show cause notice.
Commissioner of Central Excise Delhi –I
The Heels
S. MURALIDHAR
VIBHU BAKHRU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
