2015 (8) TMI 344 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exempiton - whether brand name TEGU, registered in the name of the appellant in India, is not sufficient to claim exemption of Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01/3/2003 when the same belongs to a German company - Penalty u/s 11AC - Held that - Appellant M/s Parag Enterprises is the registered owner of the Trade Mark TEGU in India. - On the issue of admissibility of Small Scale exemption to registered owner of a brand name in India it is observed that the same is no more res-integra - Decision in the case of ESBI Transmission Private Ltd. vs. CCE 1992 (5) TMI 33 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA followed - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the brand name TEGU, registered in India, allows for exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01/3/2003 when it belongs to a German company.
2. Admissibility of Small Scale exemption to the registered owner of a brand name in India.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appeal involved the question of whether the brand name TEGU, registered in India, entitles the appellant to exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01/3/2003, despite belonging to a German company. The appellant argued that they legally owned the brand name TEGU since 1996, supported by a certificate from the Trade Marks Registry. The First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal based on a certificate from the Registrar of Copyright and a certification from the German company stating TEGU was not their registered trademark. The Revenue contended that the certificate was for artistic work, not a transfer of the brand name, and there was no agreement with the German company for its use in India. The Revenue cited a case law precedent to support their argument.

Issue 2:
The second issue revolved around the admissibility of Small Scale exemption to the registered owner of a brand name in India. The Revenue argued that the appellant, even with the brand name registered in India, would not qualify for the exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01/3/2003. The Revenue relied on a case law precedent and highlighted that the exemption would not apply if a manufacturer affixes a brand name of a foreign person on goods. The judgment referred to a case where the exemption was denied due to the use of a foreign brand name, emphasizing the importance of ownership and eligibility for the grant of exemption.

Conclusion:
After hearing both parties and examining the case records, the Tribunal held that the appellant, as the registered owner of the brand name TEGU in India, was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01/3/2003. The Tribunal applied a precedent from the Calcutta High Court regarding a similar provision under a different notification to support their decision. Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs.