2007 (8) TMI 156 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption Revenue contented that appellant is not entitle for SSI exemption on the ground of the appellant used the brand name belong to other person but as per appellants the brand name use by him is free flowing and not belong to any particular person Allow appellants appeal

Summary

Issues:
Manufacture of pump sets under Chapter Sub-Heading 8413.11, small-scale exemption notification benefit denial due to affixing brand names of other persons.

Analysis:
The appellants, engaged in manufacturing pump sets, were availing the small-scale exemption notification benefit. Revenue initiated proceedings to deny the benefit as the appellants affixed the pumps with brand names other than their own. The appellants argued that the brand names were free-flowing, not owned by any particular person, and chosen based on regional popularity. They cited a Board's Circular to support their claim that using unowned brand names does not affect exemption eligibility.

The Commissioner's order questioned the ownership of the brand names, stating that manufacturers typically own only one brand name for products. However, the adjudicating authority did not establish the ownership of the brand names in question. The judgment highlighted that the onus is on the Revenue to prove brand ownership to deny the exemption. It noted that the small-scale exemption requires a connection between the specified goods and the person using the brand name, which was not established in this case. The judgment referenced a Board clarification allowing the use of unowned brand names, such as in the case of locks, without affecting exemption eligibility.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed all appeals, granting relief to the appellant. The judgment emphasized that since the brand names did not belong to any specific manufacturer and were free for any assessee to use, the small-scale exemption benefit could not be denied based on this ground.