9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 2046 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - goods were being affixed with the logo/monogram PTM which was allegedly owned by M/s Precision Testing Machines for whom the appellant had also undertaken manufacturing work - HELD THAT - The use of the brand name belonging to another entity was a matter of consideration in the decision of the Tribunal in MINIMAX INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II 2010 (1) TMI 1040 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that the acquisition of the good will by the manufacturer in relation to the name or logo used by him in relation to the particular product manufactured by him to be established before accusing another manufacturer of having used such name or logo for his product - The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS MINIMAX INDUSTRIES 2011 (1) TMI 782 - DELHI HIGH COURT , on appeal by Revenue, has held that the application of the principles pertaining to use of brand name by the Tribunal could not be faulted and Court proceeded on the basis that TATA was a brand name and in fact it was established that this brand name was allowed to be used by the TATA to the said assessee. It is seen that no case has been made out by the Central Excise authorities that any benefit was derived by the appellant in terms of goodwill or market enhancement or that the appellant was not entitled to use the brand name - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Duty liability under Central Excise Act, 1944 upheld along with penalties. 2. Claiming benefit of notifications for the period between 1996-98. 3. Use of logo/monogram allegedly owned by another entity. 4. Interpretation of taxing statute. 5. Use of brand name belonging to another entity. 6. Application of principles regarding the use of brand name. 7. Benefit derived by the appellant in terms of goodwill or market enhancement. Analysis: 1. The judgment pertains to appeals against an order confirming duty liability of ?1,07,320 along with penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant, a manufacturer of 'testing equipment,' claimed benefits under specific notifications for the period between 1996-98. The duty liability was fastened on the appellant due to the goods being affixed with a logo/monogram allegedly owned by another entity, leading to the present appeals. 2. The appellant relied on a decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Minimax Industries [2011 (269) ELT 166 (Del.)] to support their case. 3. The central excise authorities contended that the use of the brand name belonging to another entity was a crucial factor in determining the duty liability. The Tribunal's decision in Minimax Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi highlighted the necessity to establish a connection between the logo used and the manufacturer to classify it as a brand name or trade name. 4. The judgment delves into the interpretation of a taxing statute, emphasizing that equitable considerations have no place in interpreting tax laws. It stresses that taxing statutes must be interpreted based on what is explicitly expressed, without implying or importing provisions to fill any assumed deficiency. 5. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's observation on the principles regarding the use of a brand name by the Tribunal was discussed. The Court highlighted the importance of establishing goodwill associated with the name or logo used by a manufacturer before accusing another manufacturer of using it for their product. 6. The judgment also references a Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi v. M/s. Ace Auto Comp. Ltd., emphasizing the importance of distinguishing cases where the use of a brand name clearly indicates the identity of another person. The Court found no evidence to suggest that the appellant derived any benefit in terms of goodwill or market enhancement from using the brand name. 7. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed based on the lack of merit in the authorities' case against the appellant.
|
