2015 (12) TMI 1351 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - Use of other s brand name - onus to prove that brand name not belong to any other person - Eligibility to avail benefit of small scale under Notification No. 8/2002 dated 1.3.2002 - Held that - There is no dispute as to the fact that the respondents had produced metal label which is affixed on each and every machines and it is recorded by the first appellate authority that the name plate contains details, such as name of the manufacturer in full, name of the product, model, sr. no. address, telephone no., fax no. and e.mail no. The first appellate authority has recorded the findings to the fact that there were no words or letters which would indicate that SAMS is a brand name affixed on such machines. The said particular name plates were produced before us and on perusal of the same, we find that the said label does not indicate that the machines are cleared with a brand name SAMS . In fact the said label indicated exactly the manufacturer s name and details which is Sams Techno Mech and Sams Tool machine as the case may be. If department wanted to deny the exemption notification on the ground that the brand name or their name is of another person, they must prove the case and the respondent cannot be asked to prove that trade name/brand name does not belong to any other person. We find that said metal label which was produced before us, creates an impression that the said machine is manufactured by SAMS Machine Tools or SAMS Techno Mech as the case may be - impugned orders are correct and do not require any interference - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Eligibility for benefit of small scale under Notification No. 8/2002 for using another person's brand name.

Analysis:
1. The case revolves around the eligibility of the respondents to avail the benefit of small scale under Notification No. 8/2002 for using the brand name of another person. The lower authorities contended that the respondents were using the brand name "SAMS," while the respondents argued that they were not using that name and the label on the machines displayed the manufacturer's own name. The key issue was whether the respondents were entitled to the exemption notification despite the use of the brand name "SAMS."

2. Upon examination of the records, it was found that the metal label affixed on the machines contained details such as the manufacturer's full name, product name, model, serial number, address, contact numbers, and email. The appellate authority confirmed that there were no indications of "SAMS" being a brand name on the machines. The label clearly displayed the manufacturer's name, Sams Techno Mech, or Sams Tool Machine. The appellate authority rightly held that the burden of proving that the brand name belonged to another person rested with the department, and the respondents were not obligated to demonstrate otherwise. The metal label presented in court suggested that the machines were manufactured by SAMS Machine Tools or SAMS Techno Mech, thereby supporting the respondents' claim.

3. The judgment referred to a precedent set by the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad -IV vs. Stangen Immuno Diagnostics, which clarified the conditions for exemption under Notification No. 8/2002. The Court emphasized that the use of another person's brand name, whether registered or not, would disqualify a person from the exemption. The definition of "brand name" or "trade name" was detailed to establish a connection between the goods and the manufacturer using the name or mark. The Court highlighted that the mark should be unique to the manufacturer and indicate a direct link between the product and the manufacturer, as elaborated in previous judgments.

4. Another relevant case cited was Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-II vs. Pethe Brake Motors (P) Ltd., where the Court dismissed an appeal as the respondent was found not to be using another person's brand name but the surname of the company's director. This case further supported the principle that the use of a brand name belonging to another person would disqualify an entity from availing the exemption.

5. Ultimately, based on the factual findings and legal precedents, the appellate tribunal concluded that the impugned orders were correct and did not warrant any intervention. The appeals filed by the Revenue were rejected, affirming the respondents' eligibility for the exemption under Notification No. 8/2002.