2011 (6) TMI 525 - AT - Central Excise

SSI notification denail of exemption - common brand name - Held that - Board s Circular No. 52/52/94-CX, dated 1-9-1994 applied to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the earlier order of Additional Commissioner had clearly held that the brand name Amba is not being used by M/s. Amba Engineers as their owner. He has also referred to many other units using the said brand name Amba . It is seen that such commonly available brand names without there being any specific owner of the same, are usually orphan brand names. They do not belong to any particular brand name owner. The Board s circular has clarified that use of such brand name will not result in denial of SSI exemption notification. Revenue s appeal rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of brand names in relation to SSI exemption notification.
2. Dispute over ownership of brand names 'Amba' and 'Ambalica'.
3. Application of Board's circular regarding brand names and trade connections.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the use of brand names 'Amba' and 'Ambalica' by a manufacturing unit availing SSI exemption notification. The Revenue contended that these names belonged to other entities, disqualifying the appellant from the exemption.

2. The Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant, leading to a demand of duty and penalties. The appellant argued that 'Amba' and 'Ambalica' were common names not exclusively owned by any entity, citing similar cases where the use of these names did not disqualify units from the exemption.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced a previous order by the Additional Commissioner, which held that 'Amba' was a house name and not a brand name, as it was a common term used by multiple entities without exclusive ownership. The Commissioner held that the Revenue failed to prove ownership of the brand names by other entities, thus upholding the appellant's right to the exemption.

4. The Revenue's appeal reiterated the ownership claim without providing evidence to counter the findings that the brand names were commonly used without exclusive ownership. The Board's circular clarified that the trade name must indicate a connection between the goods and the person using the name, which was not established in this case.

5. The Board's circular highlighted that common brand names without specific ownership do not disqualify units from the exemption. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision based on the lack of evidence proving exclusive ownership of the brand names 'Amba' and 'Ambalica'.

6. The judgment emphasized the importance of establishing ownership of brand names to disqualify units from SSI exemption, noting that common names without exclusive ownership do not affect eligibility for the exemption. The decision upheld the appellant's right to the exemption based on the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's claim of brand name ownership by other entities.