2013 (12) TMI 678 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of SSI exemption of concessional rate of duty Goods cleared and manufactured by using brand name of foreign company Held that - The appellant are using the brand name of their foreign supplier of raw material to them - appellants are using the brand name of others as decided in CCE vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders 2004 (2) TMI 70 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Following COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, BANGALORE Versus M/s. MEYER HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. & ORS. 2011 (4) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - for excise purposes the registration of brand name in the name of appellant is applicable from the date of registration which is 05.03.2009 thus, prior to 05.03.2009 the appellant are not the owner of the brand name Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to denial of benefit of exemption for using foreign brand name by SSI unit.

Analysis:
The appellants contested an order denying them the benefit of a concessional rate of duty for using a foreign brand name while manufacturing and clearing goods. The appellant, a private limited company, applied for Central Excise registration as an SSI unit, but the department raised concerns about the use of a foreign brand name. Show-cause notices were issued covering the period from July 1997 to November 2004, leading to confirmed demands against the appellant. The appellant argued that they had applied for a logo brand name registration with the Trade Mark Authorities, which was granted in 2001, and claimed that demands post-2001 were not valid. They also asserted that the brand name did not belong to the foreign company, citing similar logos used by other Indian companies.

The appellant's counsel relied on legal precedents to support their case, emphasizing that the brand name was the company's name and not a registered logo. They argued against penalties, citing Supreme Court decisions on ambiguous interpretations of notifications. The Revenue, however, presented evidence indicating the foreign brand name's association with the appellant's products, asserting that the extended period of limitation applied due to the appellant's misrepresentation. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including the foreign company's letterhead, which confirmed the brand name association.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was indeed using the foreign supplier's brand name, as established by the evidence presented. Citing relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal, emphasizing that the appellant did not own the brand name until a later date, making the earlier claims invalid. The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's arguments and upheld the confirmed demands, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.