9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 48 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - Brand Name - Manufacturing of Nipple or complete feeding bottles - affixing/assembling of Nipple to other components/accessories bought out from outside or manufactured by others - Valuation - Brand Name - Held that - the brand name BONNE was used by the appellant company being an assignee of the right assigned to it by Smt. Sarla Aneja. It is an admitted fact on record that M/s Bonny Products ceased to operate with effect from 15.05.1997 after family settlement dated 15.05.1992 and Smt. Sarla Aneja having right over the trade mark BONNE assigned such right to M/s Baby Care Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd which was renamed as Bonny Baby Care Pvt. Ltd (BBC) with effect from 21.01.1998 as per fresh certificate of incorporation issued by Registrar of companies. The issue of trade mark and availability of the SSI exemption having been decided in the manner aforesaid and in favour of the appellant company, going into other issues framed by the learned adjudicating authority may be redundant exercise for which all the appeals are allowed. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the assembly of complete feeding bottles using nipples manufactured by the appellant amounts to manufacture. 2. Whether the appellant is entitled to SSI exemption under Notification Nos. 1/93, 85/2001, and 8/2003. 3. Valuation of goods cleared during the impugned period. 4. Ownership and use of the brand name 'BONNE'. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Manufacture of 'Nipple': The first issue in the first batch of appeals (Nos. 141/2005, 143/2005, and 144/2005) is whether the assembly of complete feeding bottles using nipples manufactured by the appellant amounts to manufacture. The appellant argued that the nipples were exempted goods and that assembling them with other components did not constitute manufacturing, referencing the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Trinity Products and subsequent Tribunal and Apex Court decisions. The appellant contended that trading activity should not be considered manufacturing, which would nullify the demand of approximately Rs. 20 lakhs. The appellant also argued that the valuation adopted by the department was baseless as there was no depression in the assessable value. 2. SSI Exemption: The second issue relates to the appellant's eligibility for SSI exemption. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification Nos. 1/93, 85/2001, and 8/2003, based on the use of the trade name 'BONNE', which was deemed to belong to others. The appellant argued that the brand name was owned by them based on an Assignment Deed and family settlement, referencing decisions in Bentex Motor Control Industries v. CCE, Ritzbury India (P) Ltd. v. CCE, and Vikshara Trading & Invest P. Ltd. v. CCE. The appellant contended that the assignment of the brand name, even if not recorded with the Registrar of Trade Marks, did not deprive them of SSI exemption. 3. Valuation of Goods: The third issue pertains to the valuation of goods cleared during the impugned period. The appellant submitted that this issue need not be argued if they succeed on the eligibility for SSI exemption. 4. Ownership and Use of Brand Name 'BONNE': The primary issue in the second batch of appeals (Nos. 972/2012 and 988-992) was the appellant's eligibility for SSI exemption. The appellant claimed ownership of the brand name 'BONNE' based on the Assignment Deed and family settlement. The Revenue argued that the appellant was not the owner of the brand name and was not entitled to SSI exemption. The Tribunal examined the factual background of the ownership of the brand name 'BONNE', tracing it back to the Aneja family and subsequent agreements. The Tribunal found that the brand name 'BONNE' was used by the appellant company as an assignee of the right assigned by Smt. Sarla Aneja. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant company was the owner of the brand name and entitled to SSI exemption, as there was no evidence to the contrary. Conclusion: The Tribunal decided in favor of the appellant company on the issue of the brand name and SSI exemption, making it unnecessary to address other issues framed by the adjudicating authority. Consequently, all the appeals were allowed. The Tribunal directed the Registry to list appeal No. E/3044/2005 for hearing and disposal, as both parties failed to argue this appeal.
|
