2007 (9) TMI 60 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - The appellant supplied the T.V.Antennae brand name B.K. to the marketing company having brand name Beekay and spell of brand name established alleged connection between them - Held that appellant not entitle for SSI Notification

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. for T.V. Antennae manufactured and cleared under a specific brand name.
2. Interpretation of brand name/trade name under the Notification.
3. Connection established between the goods and the marketing company.
4. Applicability of para 4 of the Notification regarding brand names.

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the eligibility of the respondents for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. for T.V. Antennae manufactured and cleared under the brand name 'B.K.' from April 1994 to March 1996. The department contended that the brand name 'B.K.' belonged to another company, making the respondents ineligible for the exemption claimed under the Notification.

2. The department argued that the alphabets 'B.K.' used on the goods created a connection with the marketing company that purchased them, thereby disqualifying the goods from the SSI benefit under the Notification. Reference was made to the definition of brand name/trade name under Explanation No. IX of the Notification and a Supreme Court judgment supporting the interpretation of brand names.

3. The Tribunal examined the records and submissions, noting that the brand name 'Beekay' belonged to another company, M/s. You and Me Marketing (P) Ltd., who suggested using the alphabets 'B.K.' for identification on the goods supplied by the respondents. The Tribunal agreed with the department that the connection between 'B.K.' and 'Beekay' established by pronunciation was sufficient to disqualify the respondents from the Notification's benefit.

4. Drawing parallels with a Supreme Court case involving cement brands, the Tribunal found a strong nexus between the T.V. Antennae marked with 'B.K.' and the marketing company, similar to the connection established in the cited case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous order and allowed the appeal of the Revenue, emphasizing the established connection between the goods and the ineligible marketing company as per the Notification's provisions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the interpretation of brand names/trade names under the Notification, the connection established between the goods and the marketing company, and the applicability of para 4 of the Notification regarding brand names, ultimately ruling in favor of the Revenue based on the established nexus between the goods and the ineligible brand name.