2011 (4) TMI 697 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - Use of brand name of another person - Since the brand name in question was registered by Shri C.K. Abdul Rahiman in 1986 prior to the use thereof by the assessees - The brand name used by the respondents is not different from the one used by Shri Rahiman as difference is only in the logo used - The use of even part of somebody else s brand name is sufficient to disqualify the benefit of SSI exemptions in the light of the apex court s decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy Vs Rukmani Pakkwell Traders 2004 -TMI - 46913 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided against of assessee whether the benefit of cum-duty price is available to the assessees, which benefit has been extended by Commissioner (Appeals) - Since the limitation aspect already stands remitted, the issue in this appeal is to be determined only after it is found that any part of the demand or the entire demand is sustainable on time bar - Therefore, set aside the impugned order and remit the issue of extension of benefit of cum-duty price to the adjudicating authority - Fresh orders are to be passed after extending reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the respondents were eligible for exemption from payment of excise duty under SSI notifications during the period 1997-98 to 2001-02.
2. Whether the brand name used by the respondents disqualified them from SSI exemptions.
3. Whether the benefit of cum-duty price was available to the respondents.

Analysis:
1. The respondents were engaged in manufacturing goods falling under CET sub-heading 4201.90 and were using the brand name TIP TOP, which was registered by Shri C.K. Abdul Rahiman in 1986. The department contended that the respondents were not eligible for excise duty exemption. A show-cause notice was issued for recovery of duty, interest, and penalty. The Joint Commissioner confirmed a demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set it aside, stating that the brand name used by the respondents was different from the one registered by Shri Abdul Rahiman. The Revenue appealed this decision.

2. The Tribunal found that the brand name used by the respondents was not different from the one registered by Shri Abdul Rahiman, with the difference only in the logo used. Citing a previous Supreme Court decision, the Tribunal held that even the use of part of someone else's brand name could disqualify SSI exemptions. Since the brand name was registered before the respondents used it, the Tribunal agreed that the SSI exemption was not admissible. The Tribunal remitted the issue of time bar to the adjudicating authority due to lack of findings on this aspect.

3. The second appeal by the Revenue concerned the availability of the benefit of cum-duty price to the respondents. The Tribunal decided to determine this issue only after establishing the sustainability of the demand on the time bar aspect. As the time bar issue was remitted, the Tribunal also remitted the issue of the benefit of cum-duty price to the adjudicating authority for further examination. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, upholding the demand on merits while setting aside the previous orders for reconsideration.

This judgment clarifies the eligibility criteria for excise duty exemptions based on brand name usage and registration, emphasizing the importance of adhering to trademark ownership rights. The Tribunal's decision highlights the need for thorough examination of all aspects, including time bar considerations, in excise duty cases to ensure fair and accurate adjudication.