2015 (12) TMI 1582 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - benefit of N/N. 9/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003 - use of brand name of others - Paras - Wonder 555 - whether brand name belonged to others or it did not belong to anyone, thus, making it eligible for use by anyone, and avail SSI exemption? - Held that - N/N. 9/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003, inter alia, states that exemption contained in the notification shall not apply to the specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name, whether registered or not of another person. It is thus evident that to deny the benefit of the said exemption to the impugned goods, it has to be established that the brand names Paras and Wonder 555 belonged to some other person(s). We are not in agreement with the contention of the ld. DR that if the brand names did not belong to the appellant, they necessarily belonged to others, as we find this contention fallacious because a brand name or trade name need not necessarily belong to someone in which case everybody would be entitled to use it. We find that in the primary adjudication order as well as the impugned order it is nowhere claimed, leave alone shown, that these brand names belonged to some other person(s) and consequently the very basis for denial of benefit under N/N. 9/2003-C.E. collapses. Benefit of notification available - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Excise duty demand under Notification No. 9/2003-C.E. denied due to goods bearing brand names of others.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order-in-appeal confirming an excise duty demand based on the appellant not being entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 9/2003-C.E. as they cleared goods under brand names of others.

2. Upon no representation from the appellant during the case, the appeal was decided on merit.

3. The appellant argued that the brand names 'Paras' and 'Wonder 555' on the goods did not belong to them, and the Revenue failed to prove otherwise. They claimed entitlement to the exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-C.E. for goods bearing brand names of other persons.

4. The Departmental Representative (DR) contended that since the brand names did not belong to the appellant, they must belong to others, justifying the denial of exemption.

5. The Tribunal analyzed Notification No. 9/2003-C.E., which states that the exemption does not apply to goods bearing brand names of other persons. The Tribunal disagreed with the DR's argument, stating that the brand names not belonging to the appellant does not automatically mean they belong to others. The Tribunal found the denial of benefit under the notification baseless as there was no evidence that the brand names belonged to someone else. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.