2004 (8) TMI 448 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of SSI exemption regarding the use of brand names on products.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute over the entitlement of the SSI exemption based on the use of brand names on products. The Revenue challenged the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision where it was noted that the assessee had not used the brand name of any customers on the cartons containing cakes. The Revenue contended that the use of another person's brand name disentitled the assessee from availing the SSI exemption.

The Learned DR argued that the use of another person's brand name would negate the benefit of the Notification, citing precedents such as Cochin Soft Drinks Ltd. and Crop Care Pesticides India Pvt. Ltd. The Counsel for the appellant, on the other hand, pointed out that the show cause notice did not specify the use of any trade name. He emphasized the necessity of a registered trade or brand name that identifies the goods, which was not the case here. He relied on the judgment in Voltarc India Pvt. Ltd., stating that using a house mark does not disentitle appellants from the Notification's eligibility.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's order just and proper. It was observed that the cartons only bore the names of the customers, not specific trade or brand names. The Tribunal distinguished previous cases where trade and brand names were used to identify goods in the market. The judgment in Voltarc India Pvt. Ltd. was deemed applicable, emphasizing that the use of customer names on cartons did not constitute trade or brand names. As a result, the Revenue's appeal was rejected, ruling in favor of the appellant.