2010 (2) TMI 1138 - HC - Central Excise

SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - Whether the benefit of SSI exemption is admissible in terms of N/N. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 to proprietary concern manufacturing specific excisable goods using the brand name owned by another partnership firm in which proprietor of the assessee is one of the partner? - Held that - reliance was placed in the case of Commissioner Versus Mamma Products 2008 (1) TMI 877 - KERALA HIGH COURT , where it was held that since there was common ownership of brand name summer treat , therefore, it cannot be said that it was owned by another person - SSI exemption allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to SSI exemption granted by the Appellate Tribunal

Analysis:
The High Court dealt with three appeals challenging the impugned order granting SSI exemption to the respondent-assessee. The Revenue filed the appeals against the order passed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which set aside the orders of the Adjudicating Authority and the Commissioner. The main question of law was whether the SSI exemption is applicable to a proprietary concern manufacturing excisable goods using a brand name owned by another partnership firm in which the proprietor of the assessee is a partner.

The respondent-assessee's counsel relied on a judgment by the Kerala High Court in a similar case, where it was held that common ownership of the brand name negates the argument that it is owned by another person. The Kerala High Court upheld the orders passed in the case and concluded that the assessee is entitled to the SSI exemption. The High Court, after examining the Kerala High Court's decision and the facts of the case, found no merit in the appeals filed by the Revenue. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the entitlement of the assessee to the SSI exemption.

In conclusion, the High Court upheld the decision of the Appellate Tribunal granting SSI exemption to the respondent-assessee based on the common ownership of the brand name, as established in the Kerala High Court's judgment. The High Court's analysis focused on the interpretation of the law regarding SSI exemption in cases where a proprietary concern uses a brand name owned by another partnership firm involving common ownership.