2013 (1) TMI 745 - HC - Central Excise

Availment of exemption or concessional rates of Excise duty - benefit of notification dated 28-2-1993 - Held that - Tribunal has recorded finding the judgment that the logos of the assessee as well as Hira Industries are different and they are not deceptive. This is not only a finding of fact, but, we have also compared the two logos. They are different and not deceptive. The assessee was entitled to exemption. - there is no merit in the appeal - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to exemption under Notification for Excise duty.
2. Allegation of using a similar or deceptively similar trademark and design.
3. Legality of availing SSI exemption using a brand name/trade name.
4. Refundability of exemption availed by the respondent.
5. Interpretation of logos and entitlement to exemption.

Entitlement to exemption under Notification for Excise duty:
The case involved M/s. Hira Cement, a proprietorship firm registered as a Small Scale Industries (SSI) benefiting from an exemption or concessional rates of Excise duty under a specific Notification. The Excise Department issued notices challenging the entitlement of the firm to avail the benefit, alleging the use of another person's brand name and logo not entitled to the exemption. The proceedings were initially dropped by the Commissioner but were revived through appeals to higher authorities.

Allegation of using a similar or deceptively similar trademark and design:
The core issue revolved around whether the respondent had committed illegality by using a similar or deceptively similar trademark and design of another entity, thereby being disentitled to claim the SSI exemption under various notifications related to Excise duty. The Tribunal examined the logos of both the assessee and the other entity, concluding that they were different and not deceptive, ultimately upholding the entitlement of the assessee to the exemption.

Legality of availing SSI exemption using a brand name/trade name:
The legal question arose regarding the legality of availing SSI exemption by the respondent in the clearances of their final product, cement, using the brand name/trade name of another entity, Hira Industries. The Tribunal's findings emphasized that the logos were distinct and not deceptive, affirming the legality of the exemption availed by the respondent.

Refundability of exemption availed by the respondent:
The issue of whether the benefit of SSI exemption, utilized by the respondent in the clearances of their cement product under the brand name of Hira Industries, was illegal and thus refundable to the appellant was raised. The Tribunal's decision, supported by a comparison of logos, concluded that the respondent was entitled to the exemption, dismissing the appeal against refundability.

Interpretation of logos and entitlement to exemption:
The Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on comparing the logos of the assessee and Hira Industries to determine any deceptive similarities. Finding no deceptive elements and affirming the distinctiveness of the logos, the Tribunal upheld the entitlement of the assessee to the exemption under the Notification for Excise duty. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the lack of merit in challenging the respondent's entitlement based on the logo comparison and legal considerations.