2010 (12) TMI 307 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - two brand name - Held that - Admittedly the GLARE brand name has been used in respect of the scissor and cannot be associated with the brand name ACE which stands specifically and prominently used for Gas Lighters. Taking a common day example if a pack of Kit-kat chocolate is being given free along with a bottle of aerated water say Coke and being prominently displayed on the bottle of the Coke as Kit-kat free chocolates that may not convert the brand name Coke into use of two brand names i.e. Coke and Kit-kat. - a product can be marketed under only one brand name and there can never be two brand names in respect of the same product in the same retail pack. The department having been accepted the use of brand name ACE for Gas Lighters cannot be heard to say that the GLARE brand name is also being used for the same Gas Lighters. - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of brand names on the product packaging.
2. Eligibility for small scale exemption under notification No. 8/2003-CE.
3. Dispute over the use of brand names ACE and GLARE.
4. Adjudication of the show cause notice by the Joint Commissioner and subsequent appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Interpretation of Brand Names on Product Packaging:
The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of brand names on the product packaging of Gas Lighters manufactured by the appellant. The central issue was whether the use of the brand name GLARE alongside ACE on the packaging disqualified the appellant from availing the small scale exemption under notification No. 8/2003-CE. The officers alleged that the appellant's inclusion of the GLARE brand on the packaging made the product ineligible for the exemption.

Eligibility for Small Scale Exemption:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Gas Lighters, was availing the SSI exemption under notification No. 8/2003-CE. However, a show cause notice was issued proposing recovery of duty, penalty, interest, and confiscation of goods based on the allegation that the appellant was also affixing the brand name GLARE on the product, making them ineligible for the exemption. The Joint Commissioner initially dropped the proceedings, but the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the decision, leading to the present appeal.

Dispute Over Brand Names ACE and GLARE:
The officers contended that the appellant used both ACE and GLARE brand names on the Gas Lighters, thus disqualifying them from the small scale exemption. However, the appellant argued that the use of GLARE was limited to the free Kids Scissors provided with the Gas Lighters and did not constitute a separate brand for the Gas Lighters. The appellant emphasized that a product could only be marketed under one brand name.

Adjudication of Show Cause Notice:
The show cause notice issued to the appellant was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner, who dropped the proceedings. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the decision and remanded the matter for re-adjudication. The appellate tribunal, after considering the arguments presented by both sides, found that the use of the GLARE brand name on the product packaging did not disqualify the appellant from the small scale exemption. The tribunal set aside the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the order of the Joint Commissioner, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the tribunal's decision on each aspect of the case.