2018 (2) TMI 1722 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - Held that - As the brand name used by M/s.Bhamber Udyog is HI BHAMBER and by the appellant is BHAMBER 2015 are not similar, in that circumstance, it cannot be said that appellant is using the brand name of another person - appellant is entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption N/N. 8/2003 dated 01.03.2003 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE due to alleged use of another person's brand name.

Analysis:
The appellant appealed against the denial of exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, claiming that they were wrongly accused of using the brand name of another person, M/s. Bhamber Udyog. The adjudicating authority initially dropped the charges and allowed the benefit of the exemption. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that the appellant became the owner of the brand name only from November 2003, thus disallowing the exemption for the period prior to that. The central issue was whether the appellant was indeed using the brand name of another person, which would impact their eligibility for the exemption.

Upon detailed consideration, the Tribunal found that the appellant was using the brand name "BHAMBER 2015," while M/s. Bhamber Udyog's brand name was "HI BHAMBER." Both brand names were registered with the Trade Mark authorities and were deemed not similar or resembling each other. The Tribunal noted the certificates of registration for both brand names, which confirmed the lack of similarity. Consequently, it was concluded that the appellant was not using the brand name of another person, as alleged, and was thus entitled to the benefit of the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003.

In light of the distinctiveness of the brand names and the lack of similarity between them, the impugned order denying the exemption was set aside by the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed, and any consequential relief was granted to the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of verifying the actual usage and registration status of brand names to determine eligibility for statutory exemptions, emphasizing the significance of legal documentation in such cases.