2005 (2) TMI 656 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeals against Orders-in-Appeal, Ownership of brand names, Denial of SSI exemption benefit, House mark on carton boxes, Interpretation of relevant legal precedents.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the Revenue against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner based on judgments of CEGAT, New Delhi. The Revenue contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not produce proof that the alleged owners of brand names were manufacturing specified goods under those brands. The Revenue relied on a decision by CEGAT, New Delhi in a different case to support their position. Hence, the Revenue filed appeals challenging the Commissioner (Appeals)'s orders.

The Respondents argued that they were the owners of the brand names based on assignment deeds. They cited legal precedents, including a decision by the Apex Court, to support their claim. They disputed the denial of SSI exemption benefit due to the presence of house marks on carton boxes of certain products. The Respondents contended that the house mark did not disqualify them from the exemption, citing relevant legal cases. The Tribunal considered the arguments and found that the Respondents had established ownership of the brand names through assignments. The Tribunal also noted that objections raised by the Revenue regarding house marks on products did not hold merit based on legal precedents. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, concluding that the Respondents were entitled to the exemption.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision was based on the ownership of brand names by the Respondents through assignment deeds and the interpretation of legal precedents regarding the denial of SSI exemption benefits. The Tribunal found in favor of the Respondents, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.