2004 (6) TMI 385 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether goods manufactured and cleared by the appellants under the brand name 'Anutone' are eligible for SSI exemption.

Comprehensive Analysis:

Issue 1: Ownership of Brand Name 'Anutone'

The appellants, M/s. SSS Wood Industries, claimed that they are the rightful owners of the brand name 'Anutone' as it was affixed to their products since 1990. They argued that the registration under the Copyright Act by Shri Sandeep Mittal in 1997 conclusively proves their ownership. They contended that the brand name 'Anutone' belongs solely to them and they have consistently filed declarations under Rule 173B. They cited legal precedents where ownership of a brand name was deemed crucial for SSI benefit. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on a different decision, but the appellants argued that their case was distinct due to the absence of mis-declaration or suppression. The appellants emphasized that they were under a bona fide belief regarding the ownership of the brand name.

Issue 2: Revenue's Position on Brand Name Ownership

The Revenue, represented by Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, contended that the brand name 'Anutone' was associated with Sandeep Mittal in his individual capacity, not with the appellants as a partnership firm. They argued that the appellants had misstated information in their classification declarations by claiming not to manufacture goods under someone else's brand name. The Revenue asserted that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act applied due to the misrepresentation regarding the brand name ownership.

Issue 3: Tribunal's Decision

After considering both sides' arguments, the Tribunal found that the appellants had been using the trade/brand name 'Anutone' since 1990, uncontested by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the literary and artistic work registered under the Copyright Act was distinct from a brand name or trade name under the Trade Marks Act. The Tribunal concluded that 'Anutone' was not registered as a brand name by Sandeep Mittal under the Trade Marks Act and accepted the appellants' ownership claim based on the lack of evidence proving another owner. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to SSI exemption, overturning the lower authorities' decisions and setting aside the demands and penalties imposed on M/s. SSS Wood Industries and Shri Sandeep Mittal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, recognizing their ownership of the brand name 'Anutone' and granting them SSI exemption for the goods manufactured and cleared under that brand name.