9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (9) TMI 627 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved: Interpretation of SSI exemption under relevant notifications for goods cleared under a brand name owned by another person.
Summary: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI involved the demand of duty, interest, and penalty under Section 11A and 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944, concerning the clearance of plastic storage tanks under the brand name "IDEAL" by the appellants. The impugned order was based on the contention that the brand name "IDEAL" was owned by another entity, M/s. Ideal Electrodes, which manufactured welding electrodes, thereby violating SSI exemption conditions prohibiting the use of a brand name owned by another person. The appellants argued that they used the brand name "IDEAL" on plastic storage tanks, while another manufacturer used the same brand name on welding electrodes. They contended that the SSI Notifications in force during the disputed period did not restrict an SSI unit from availing benefits if their brand name coincided with another manufacturer's in a different class of goods. Additionally, they highlighted that the brand name "IDEAL" was retrospectively registered in their name by the Trade Marks authorities from 1999. They relied on Circular No. 88/88-CX-6, dated 30-12-1988, which clarified that SSI exemption could not be denied based on the use of the same brand name by different persons for different classes of goods. The Department, represented by the SDR, supported the findings of the Commissioner in the impugned order. The Tribunal observed that the appellants were the rightful owners of the "IDEAL" brand for their plastic storage tanks during the relevant period. Referring to the Circular issued by the Board in 1988, the Tribunal emphasized that SSI exemption could not be denied solely because another assessee used the same brand name for different goods. Citing precedents, including a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was based on an incorrect interpretation of the provisions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and disposing of the stay application. The judgment was pronounced in open court by Member (T) P. Karthikeyan.
|
