2013 (2) TMI 278 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - Brand name of other - Whether assessee being eligible for SSI exemption from the date of Deed of Assignment of brand name in favour of assessee - Thereafter the brand names under which the goods have been cleared belong to them - The demand pertains to the period April, 1999 to December 2001 and the first assignment deed has been executed on 10.08.2000 Held that - There is no assignment deed in favour of the appellant for the period prior to 10.08.2000 and even for the period on or after 10.08.2000, the assignment is not effective since, as per the deed, the assignment takes place when the trade marks are registered. Inasmuch as the trade marks are yet to be registered, the question of the appellant owning the brand name by virtue of the assignment deed does not arise at all - In favour of revenue

Summary

Issues:
- Claim of SSI exemption for medicaments bearing another brand name
- Validity of assignment deeds for brand names
- Interpretation of SSI exemption notification condition 4

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against a decision confirming a demand for duty, interest, and penalty on M/s Eu-Medicament for claiming Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption for medicaments bearing the brand name of M/s Milichem Laboratories. The appellant argued that they had valid assignment deeds for the brand names, entitling them to the exemption. The Revenue contended that the assignment deeds were not effective as the trademarks were not registered during the relevant period.

The Tribunal noted that the first assignment deed was executed after the relevant period, making the demand for duty valid for that period. For the subsequent period, the assignment deed stated that the assignment would take effect upon trademark registration. As the trademarks were not registered at the material time, the appellant did not own the brand names, violating condition 4 of the SSI exemption notification.

Reference was made to a previous Tribunal case where a valid assignment deed existed at the time of goods clearance, entitling the appellant to the SSI exemption. However, in the present case, there was no assignment deed before a certain date, and the assignment was contingent upon trademark registration. As the trademarks were not registered, the appellant did not have ownership of the brand names. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, as the appellant did not meet the conditions for the SSI exemption.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, as the appellant did not have a valid assignment of brand names during the relevant period, rendering them ineligible for the SSI exemption. The decision was based on the interpretation of the assignment deeds and the conditions of the SSI exemption notification.