2004 (5) TMI 339 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 175/86 for Automatic PF Control Instrument.
2. Ownership of the brand name 'phasitron' by the respondents.
3. Applicability of SSI exemption based on brand name registration.

Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Duty:
The appeal was filed by Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. The Revenue argued that the respondents, manufacturers of Automatic PF Control Instrument, were not eligible for concessional duty under Notification No. 175/86 and 1/93 as the brand name 'phasitron' belonged to M/s. Sargrove Automation Ltd., England. The Revenue contended that the respondents using the brand name 'phasitron' were not entitled to the SSI exemption as per relevant notifications. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments and held that the benefit of SSI exemption was not available if the goods were specified with a brand name/trade name of a foreign entity. However, in this case, it was found that the brand name 'phasitron' was assigned to the respondents with technical transfer in 1981, and since the original owner did not renew it from 1991, the respondents became the sole owner/user of the brand name in India. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal.

Ownership of the Brand Name:
The Revenue argued that the brand name 'phasitron' belonged to M/s. Sargrove Automation Ltd., England, and not to the respondents, making them ineligible for SSI exemption. The respondents, on the other hand, presented evidence showing that the brand name registration in their name from 1983 and subsequent renewals established their ownership. The Tribunal noted that under an agreement in 1981, the brand name 'phasitron' was assigned to the respondents with technical transfer, and since the original owner did not renew the brand name from 1991 onwards, the respondents became the sole owner/user of the brand name in India. Therefore, based on the evidence provided, the Tribunal upheld the respondents' ownership of the brand name, making them eligible for SSI exemption.

Applicability of SSI Exemption Based on Brand Name Registration:
The Tribunal considered the registration status of the brand name 'phasitron' and its ownership to determine the eligibility of the respondents for SSI exemption. The respondents demonstrated that the brand name was registered in their name from 1983 and was regularly renewed. The Tribunal found that since the respondents were the sole owner/user of the brand name in India due to the original owner's failure to renew it, they were entitled to the SSI exemption. Relying on previous judgments and the evidence presented, the Tribunal concluded that the respondents met the criteria for SSI exemption based on the ownership and registration of the brand name 'phasitron'. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and upheld the eligibility of the respondents for SSI exemption under the relevant notifications.