2004 (5) TMI 436 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for SSI Exemption Notification for clearing excisable goods bearing the brand name of another person.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility for SSI Exemption Notification
The appeal filed by M/s. Kamfin Paints (India) Ltd. raised the question of whether they were entitled to the benefit of the Small Scale Industries (SSI) Exemption Notification while clearing excisable goods bearing the brand name of another person. The appellant contended that the thinners they manufactured, bearing the brand name and logo of M/s. Kamfin Industries, should not disqualify them from the SSI Exemption Notification. They argued that the thinners produced by them and by M/s. Kamfin Industries were different, and the brand name "Kemfin" was not a registered trademark but merely a house mark. They also cited a Board's Circular to support their claim that the same brand name could be used for different classes of goods by different entities. Additionally, they argued that the demand for duty was time-barred under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act.

In response, it was highlighted that one of the directors of the appellant-company, who was also the proprietor of M/s. Kemfin Industries, confirmed that the brand name and logo belonged to him and were used for manufacturing goods. Referring to legal precedents, it was argued that the use of an unregistered brand name or trade name, even if not for the same goods, would disqualify the appellant from the exemption. The Tribunal noted that the impugned goods were indeed cleared with the brand name "Kemfin" and logo belonging to M/s. Kemfin Industries, and the appellant could not claim ignorance about this association. The Tribunal held that the appellants were not eligible for the SSI Exemption Notification due to the use of another person's brand name on their goods. However, following previous decisions, the Tribunal directed the re-computation of duty based on the sale price as the cum-duty price and imposed a penalty of Rs. 30,000, considering all circumstances.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that while the appellants were not entitled to the SSI Exemption Notification due to using another person's brand name on their goods, they were directed to pay the revised duty amount calculated based on the cum-duty price and a penalty of Rs. 30,000.