2010 (12) TMI 404 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - Brand name of other person - the trade mark registration is in the name of the respondents respondents have been able to establish that the trade mark belongs to them. The registration certificate is dated 31-3-2010 - The brand name could not have belonged to someone else even for the earlier period -the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE Mumbai v. Bigen Industries Limited - 2006 (4) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA to support his contention that once the trade mark is registered in the name of assessee by a statutory authority authorized to do so recognizing the assessee to be the sole proprietor of trade mark the benefit of SSI exemption would be available - Hence the appeal filed by the Revenue has no merits and accordingly is rejected - Decide in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against duty demand and penalty imposition based on brand name ownership for SSI exemption.

Analysis:
1. Duty Demand and Penalty Imposition: The original adjudicating authority confirmed duty demand and imposed a penalty on the respondent for allegedly using a brand name belonging to someone else, thus rendering them ineligible for SSI exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this decision due to the lack of evidence from the department establishing brand ownership. The respondent's advocate argued that the brand name "Citizen Labtac" was embossed on the animal cage, along with "Citizen" on the lockset, indicating the respondent's use of both brands. The advocate highlighted that the brand "Citizen" had been registered in the respondent's name, supporting their eligibility for SSI exemption. The advocate also referenced a Supreme Court decision to strengthen their argument.

2. Ownership of Brand Name: The Commissioner noted that the department failed to provide evidence regarding the actual owner of the brand name. The responsibility to prove brand ownership belonging to someone else rested with the Revenue, which they did not fulfill. The registration certificate issued to the respondent on 31-3-2010 confirmed the brand name ownership, indicating that it could not have belonged to another party even before that date. The Tribunal acknowledged the respondent's ability to establish brand ownership through the registration certificate and upheld the Commissioner's decision to reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal against the duty demand and penalty imposition, as the respondent successfully demonstrated their ownership of the brand name through the registration certificate. The lack of evidence from the department regarding brand ownership and the Supreme Court precedent cited by the respondent supported the decision to uphold the Commissioner's ruling in favor of the respondent's eligibility for SSI exemption.