2016 (11) TMI 1519 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - use of Brand name Bentex along with the monogram of joining hands - the Tribunal had remanded back with a specific direction to examine the authenticity and genuineness of the registered certificate with the brand name that was found in favor of the assessee by the lower authorities - scope of SCN - Held that - no law permits to raise the new ground and reject the claim of the assessee - In the case of Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai 2007 (7) TMI 422 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , Hon ble Supreme Court observed that when the CESTAT remanded the matter on specific terms then no new terms can be added. The lower authorities had committed an error by raising a new point which was outside the scope of the order passed by the Tribunal - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against denial of small scale industry exemption due to brand name and monogram ownership.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the denial of small scale industry exemption to the appellant based on the ownership of the brand name 'Bentex' and the monogram of 'joining hands'. The lower authority had rejected the exemption, claiming that the monogram was a brand name not belonging to the appellant. This case was a second round of litigation, with the Tribunal having previously remanded the matter to reevaluate the issue after the brand name 'Bentex' was registered in the appellant's name.

Upon reexamination, the authorities confirmed that the brand name 'Bentex' indeed belonged to the appellant, as registered since 31-3-1994. However, a new issue arose regarding the ownership of the monogram 'joining hands', leading to the denial of the SSI exemption. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities erred in raising a new ground beyond the scope of the remand order, which specifically directed examination of the brand name ownership.

Citing the case of Paper Products Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai and Mohan Lal v. Anandibai and Ors., the Tribunal emphasized that when a matter is remanded with specific terms, no new issues can be introduced. Therefore, the lower authorities' decision to consider the monogram ownership was deemed erroneous. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' order, granting the appellant the consequential benefit of the SSI exemption.