2006 (1) TMI 46 - AT - Central Excise

Brand name SSI exemption Brand name TIP-TOP is used by the appellant himself and is owner of the same No evidence shown by Dept. to show that brand name is owned or registered by any other person so exemption cannot be denied

Summary

Issues:
- Duty demand on goods cleared using the brand name 'TIP TOP'
- Imposition of penalties under Section 11AC and Rule 173Q
- Challenge to the impugned order by M/s. Bags & Bags
- Ownership of the brand name 'TIP TOP' disputed between appellants and Shri C.K. Abdul Rahiman
- Validity of the Commissioner (Appeals) finding on ownership of the brand name

Analysis:
- The Revenue alleged that the appellants cleared goods using the brand name 'TIP TOP,' registered in Shri C.K. Abdul Rahiman's name, demanding duty and imposing penalties. The appellants challenged this, claiming they were the first owners of the trademark, citing the Apex Court's decision in Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc. The appellants argued that Abdul Rahiman was originally a partner in their firm, making him a co-owner of the brand name. They presented evidence of using 'TIP TOP' since 1980 and referred to various case laws supporting their position.

- The learned Advocate highlighted that the Commissioner (Appeals) found Abdul Rahiman no longer owned the brand name 'TIP TOP.' The Revenue disputed the appellants' ownership claim, questioning the validity of the Commissioner (Appeals) finding. The Tribunal upheld the appellants' claim, relying on the partnership deed from 1980 and the Commissioner (Appeals) order. They rejected the Revenue's objection, stating that a quasi-judicial authority's factual finding can be relied upon unless contradicted. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that during the period in question, Abdul Rahiman did not own the brand name 'TIP TOP,' leading to the appeal's allowance with consequential relief.

- The Tribunal's decision rested on establishing the appellants' ownership of the brand name 'TIP TOP' and refuting the Revenue's allegations. By considering evidence, case laws, and the Commissioner (Appeals) finding, the Tribunal determined that Abdul Rahiman no longer owned the brand name, supporting the appellants' claim. This analysis led to the dismissal of the duty demand and penalties imposed, providing relief to M/s. Bags & Bags based on the ownership dispute resolution.