2005 (9) TMI 353 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 based on brand name ownership.
2. Clubbing of clearances for determining exemption limit under Notification No. 1/93.
3. Disallowance of SSI exemption by Revenue due to brand name ownership by another partnership firm.
4. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 299/98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging Order-in-Appeal No. 299/98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai, regarding the eligibility of the respondents for the Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption under Notification No. 1/93. The respondents were involved in the manufacture and sale of "pressure cookers" and were availing the SSI exemption. The Revenue disallowed the exemption, claiming that the brand name and logo used by the respondents were owned by another partnership firm. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that both companies owned the brand name and logo, leading to the conclusion that it was a common brand name usage. The Commissioner further stated that the clearances of both units should be combined to determine exemption eligibility under Notification 1/93.

2. The Revenue contended that the respondents were not eligible for the exemption due to the brand name ownership issue. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the identity of interest between the firms and the clubbing of clearance values for the exemption assessment. The Advocate argued that if the brand name is jointly owned, the SSI exemption cannot be denied based on brand name usage. The Additional Commissioner upheld the demands for a specific period, but the first appellate authority favored the respondents, leading to the Revenue's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) decision.

3. Upon careful review of the case records, it was revealed that there were two partnership firms, one of which had an additional partner who was the mother of one of the partners in the respondent's firm. Both partnership firms used the brand name "PREMIER" along with the logo "SS" for their products. The Tribunal emphasized that when a brand name is jointly owned, each person is considered the owner of the brand name. Consequently, in this scenario, it was determined that the respondents were not utilizing another person's brand name. Additionally, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that even when combining the clearances of both units, they remained within the exemption limit specified in the Notification.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, stating that there was no flaw in the Commissioner (Appeals) decision. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 22-9-2005, affirming the respondents' eligibility for the SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 based on the jointly owned brand name and logo.