2003 (9) TMI 475 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of SSI exemption Notification regarding the use of a brand name on products.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal against an order-in-appeal where the duty and penalty were confirmed on the appellants for using the brand name "Talbros" on their products, raising a question on their entitlement to the SSI exemption Notification. The appellants are involved in the manufacture of Rubber Parts and Cork Sheets under the brand name "Talbros Rubber Parts." The Revenue contended that since the brand name "Talbros" belonged to another company engaged in manufacturing different goods, the appellants were not eligible for the SSI exemption Notification. A Show-Cause-Notice was issued by the Department based on this ground, leading to the appeal.

The Tribunal analyzed the situation and found that the goods manufactured by the appellants were distinct and fell under different Tariff Headings compared to the products of the company owning the brand name "Talbros." Referring to a precedent in CCE, Chandigarh v. Fine Industries, the Tribunal emphasized that if the goods produced by an assessee differ from those of the entity owning the brand name used by the assessee, the benefit of the SSI Notification cannot be denied. The Tribunal also cited a similar decision in M/s. Sirocco Pressings (P) Ltd. & Others v. CCE, Delhi-II to support this interpretation of the law.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE, as their case aligned with the legal principles established in the aforementioned cases. Therefore, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable and set aside, allowing the appeals of the appellants with any consequential relief as per the law.