2008 (4) TMI 627 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal regarding the use of brand name "Garnier" and eligibility for SSI exemption.

Summary:
- The charge was that the first appellant used the brand name "Garnier" belonging to the second appellant, M/s. Garnier Seatings, leading to proceedings against both appellants.
- The Revenue alleged that the second appellant abetted the first appellant in using the brand name of another person, but no evidence was presented to establish ownership of the brand name.
- The second appellant had only applied for registration of the brand name in 2005, which does not automatically confer ownership.
- Legal arguments were made citing precedents where ownership of a brand name was crucial to denying SSI exemption benefits.
- The Tribunal found that there was no evidence to prove that the second appellant owned the brand name "Garnier," and merely applying for registration did not establish ownership.
- The decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was overturned, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the importance of establishing ownership of a brand name to deny SSI exemption benefits.