2012 (7) TMI 384 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of SSI benefit - cakes and pastries supplied to customers under the brand name assigned by the other brand name owner - Held that - SSI benefit cannot be denied to the appellant in respect of the subject goods on the ground that these goods were supplied to customers under a brand name belonging to another person as that the appellant thereby acquired exclusive right to use it on cakes and pastries within the territorial limits set out in the deed of assignment. It is not in dispute that, within such territory, nobody else, nor even the brand name owner, had the right to use the brand name on identical or similar goods - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Whether SSI benefit was admissible to the appellant in respect of cakes and pastries supplied under a brand name assigned by another company.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of whether the appellant was entitled to the Small Scale Industries (SSI) benefit for supplying cakes and pastries under a brand name assigned to them by another company. The appellant argued that they had exclusive rights to use the brand name within specific territorial limits as per the deed of assignment. The appellant relied on legal precedents like Collector vs. Vikshara Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. and Commissioner vs. Sree Ram Perfumery Works where similar benefits were granted in cases of brand name assignments. On the other hand, the respondent relied on Commissioner vs. Dhanvi Trading & Investment (P) Ltd. where SSI benefit was denied due to brand name ownership issues.

The Tribunal examined the facts and legal precedents cited by both parties. It was noted that the appellant had acquired exclusive rights to use the assigned brand name within specified territorial limits. The Tribunal referred to Supreme Court cases like Vikshara Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. where the registration of the assignment deed was deemed immaterial for granting SSI benefits. The Tribunal also considered the case of Sree Ram Perfumery Works Ltd. where benefits were allowed for goods with an assigned brand name. The Tribunal distinguished the case cited by the respondent, Commissioner vs. Dhanvi Trading & Investment (P) Ltd., as not applicable to the current situation.

After thorough consideration, the Tribunal found valid reasons to rule in favor of the appellant. It held that the appellant should not be denied SSI benefit for supplying goods under an assigned brand name. The Tribunal relied on the case law cited by the appellant, which supported the appellant's claim. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, granting them consequential relief.