2010 (8) TMI 277 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption Brand name of another person - Revenue has relied upon solely on the statement of concerned person of the firm - It was obligatory on their part to prove the actual owner of the brand name - Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the lower adjudicating authority s order - The investigations have not been extended to the owner of the brand name and there is no corroborative evidence to prove the allegations of use of brand name of others no infirmity in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - appeals de-void of merits dismissed

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal, Eligibility for SSI Exemption, Ownership of Brand Name 'SARCAST', Burden of Proof on Revenue, Reliance on Statement under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944, Investigation by Department, Interpretation of Agreement Clause, Consideration of Evidence, Discharge of Onus by Revenue.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 122 to 123/2006 concerning the eligibility for Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption under Central Excise Act, 1944. The issue revolved around the ownership of the brand name 'SARCAST' used by the respondents, allegedly belonging to another entity, M/s. Sar Medilink Pvt. Ltd. The lower adjudicating authority had imposed duty, interest, and penalties, which were set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the Revenue's appeal.

The appellant contended that the partner of the respondent unit admitted to the ownership of the brand name 'SARCAST' by M/s. Sar Medilink Pvt. Ltd. based on a statement recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant emphasized the importance of such statements, citing relevant case laws. Additionally, a clause in the agreement between the parties implied control over the brand name by M/s. Sar Medilink Pvt. Ltd., even though it was not registered.

On the other hand, the respondent argued that the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision was well-reasoned and did not warrant any interference. They highlighted that the burden of proof lay on the Revenue to establish the ownership of the brand name, which was not adequately done. The respondent challenged the reliance on a single statement and emphasized the lack of corroborative evidence or extended investigations into the actual ownership of the brand name.

The Tribunal analyzed the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, which extensively discussed the evidence and legal principles involved. The Commissioner found that the Revenue had failed to prove that the brand name 'SARCAST' belonged to another person, as claimed. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting that the Revenue had not discharged the onus of proving ownership of the brand name, despite references to contractual clauses and statements. The Tribunal concluded that the appeals lacked merit and dismissed them, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) 's order.

In summary, the judgment focused on the burden of proof regarding brand name ownership, the significance of recorded statements under the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the necessity for thorough investigations to establish factual ownership in cases of disputed brand names. The decision underscored the importance of concrete evidence and proper discharge of onus by the Revenue in such matters.