PNB fraud due to failure of internal control, says RBI.:      Celeb jeweller Nirav Modi named in PNB’s $1.77-b fraud. Bank suspends 10 officers, lodges complaint with CBI; more banks may be hit. :      Bombay High Court in a hearing on 6th Feb, 2018 says GST regime is not user friendly. :      GST Network Chairman Ajay Bhushan return simplification panel to meet industry this week to simplify the return filing process.:    Finance Secretary Hasmukh Adhia said the Government stares at a Rs 50,000 crore GST revenue shortfall in the current fiscal. :    E-Way Bill which was to be rolled-out on 1st Feb is deferred to month-end due to technical glitches.:      TN raked in 22% more GST at Rs 23,318 crore between Jul-Dec 2017, against Rs 19,018 crore under VAT in the corresponding period the previous year. :      MoS,Corp Affairs PP Chaudhary says in Rajya Sabha that Govt has detected GST evasion of Rs 5.70 Crores in 16 cases during Jul-Nov 2017 - 6th Feb 2018. :      FM, Arun Jaitley says that States are not in favour of bringing the petroleum products under GST. :      The Finance Secretary, Hasmukh Adhia says out of 7 lakh tax payers who opted for composition scheme 5 lakhs had a turnover less than Rs 5 lakhs pa, though the exemption limit is upto Rs 20 lakhs. :     

CESTAT Chennai : M/s. Arullagam Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Vs. CCE, Chennai - IV : 14th March, 2017


E/573 to 576/2007
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos.45 to 48/2007 (M IV) dated 29.4.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)

M/s. Arullagam Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd.
M/s. Prizm Remedies Pvt. Ltd.
M/s. GM Lakshmi Ramalingam
M/s. NSM Agencies


CCE, Chennai - IV

Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate for the Appellant
Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent

Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Honble Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Technical Member

Date of Hearing / Decision: 14.03.2017

FINAL ORDER Nos. 40503-40506 / 2017

Per D.N. Panda

Learned counsel says that by virtue of agreement dated 18.2.2005, the trade mark developed by M/s. Prizm Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. was assigned to the appellant with the covenant clause 6 thereof, reading as under:-

“The ASSIGNOR covenants and undertakes to do, execute such further and other acts, deeds and documents as may be necessary for transfer of ownership or for absolutely vesting the full rights, title, benefit, interest and property in and to the scheduled trademarks in favour of the ASSIGNEE”.

2. While investing absolute right in terms of the above covenant, the assignor also renounces its right, title and interest over the scheduled trademarked goods without impairing the right of the assignee appellant.

3. Law is well settled that if the contents of the document are not disputed by Revenue, the right, title and property vested with assignee remains unaffected. Therefore, the presumptive adjudication holding that the appellant was the manufacturer of goods using trade name of others is baseless.

4. For the reasons stated above, all the four appeals are allowed holding that the appellant by virtue of the deed of the assignment became owner of the brand name and had not manufactured goods using brand name of another with effect from 18.2.2005.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

(MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR)                 (D.N. PANDA)
Technical Member                     Judicial Member


Additional Info

  • Date Range: Tuesday, 14 March 2017
  • Court/Authority: CESTAT
  • Tax Type: Central Excise
  • Petitioner/Appellant: M/s. Arullagam Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Vs. CCE, Chennai - IV
  • Respondent: M/s. Arullagam Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors Vs. CCE, Chennai - IV
  • Appl no. or Appl year: E/573 to 576/2007
  • Supreme Court Location: Delhi
  • CESTAT Location: Ahmedabad
  • AAR Location: Delhi
  • Authority: Supreme Court

Seven questions to know if you 

are paying taxes 


If you are the CFO or the Tax Head you ought to read this. Click Here

Our Main Services 

in Indirect Taxes


  • Business structuring and tax planning
  • Review of end-to-end business processes for indirect taxes
  • Strategy to prevent litigation, representation and litigation support
  • Tax compliance and tax control framework
  • Support on specific issues


Brief update on CESTAT judgements passed during June 2016 to July 2016. Please note this update is not a summary of the cases but only leads on important issues decided. The links to the judgments are also provided for the full text.

Click here for update

Go to top