2004 (5) TMI 517 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Burden of proof regarding brand name ownership for SSI exemption eligibility.
2. Allegations of using another company's brand name.
3. Clubbing of clearances and turnover for independent units under SSI notifications.

Issue 1: Burden of proof regarding brand name ownership for SSI exemption eligibility
The appeal arose from an Order-in-Appeal where the Commissioner held that the department failed to prove that the assessees were using another person's brand name. The Commissioner relied on affidavits from customer companies stating that the brand names on welding electrodes belonged to the assessees. The department could not provide concrete evidence that the brand names belonged to the customer companies, leading to the acceptance of the assessees' claim. The Commissioner set aside demands and penalties based on this finding.

Issue 2: Allegations of using another company's brand name
The Revenue argued that investigations revealed the brand name belonged to other companies not eligible for SSI exemption. It was alleged that one company used another's brand name and that common directors were involved in both units. The Revenue contended that the Order-in-Appeal was incorrect and should be reversed to uphold the Order-in-Original.

Issue 3: Clubbing of clearances and turnover for independent units under SSI notifications
The Advocate for the respondents argued that all brand names belonged to the respondents and that the units were independent with no mutual interest. It was highlighted that the units operated separately with distinct locations and processes. The Advocate relied on a judgment stating that the units should not be clubbed. The Tribunal found that the brand names were owned by the respondents themselves and not by other persons. The Commissioner's decision was upheld as the Revenue failed to establish brand ownership by other parties, thus rejecting the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the need for Revenue to prove brand ownership by another party to deny notification benefits. The order passed by the Commissioner was deemed correct in law and was upheld.

This judgment clarifies the burden of proof for brand name ownership in determining eligibility for SSI exemption, addresses allegations of using another company's brand name, and emphasizes the independent status of units under SSI notifications.