2008 (4) TMI 193 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant M/s. A.J. Bantex (P) Ltd. SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86 & 1/93 denied on ground that appellant using brand name A.J. Bentax is similar to the brand name Bantex of foreign company since appellant is a register company, it has right to use company s name on its products moreover foreign company is not challenging the use of name A.J. Bentax burden to prove that the Brand name belongs to another, not discharged by revenue exemption not deniable

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Affixation of brand name and eligibility for SSI exemption.
2. Invocation of extended period for demand.
3. Burden of proof regarding brand name ownership.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Affixation of brand name and eligibility for SSI exemption:
The appellant, M/s. A.J. Bantex (P) Ltd., manufactures stationery and affixes the brand name "Bantex" on their products. The central issue is whether this affixation disqualifies them from the benefits of SSI Notification No. 175/86-CE and Notification No. 1/93-CE. The adjudicating authority held that the name "Bantex" is associated with a well-known European company, M/s. Bantex of Denmark, and thus, the appellant's use of the name creates a connection in the mind of the purchaser, leading to the denial of SSI exemption. The appellant argued that "A.J. Bantex" is their registered company name, and they have the right to use it on their products. They cited several precedents, including the case of VI JOHN Beauty Tech v. CCE, which established that using a company's registered name does not disqualify it from SSI exemption, even if part of the name is a brand name of another entity. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, noting that the name "A.J. Bantex" is legally registered and there is no evidence of any challenge to this name by the foreign company. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to use their company's name on their products and thus eligible for SSI exemption.

2. Invocation of extended period for demand:
The adjudicating authority invoked the extended period under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, citing that the department was kept in the dark about the usage of the brand name "Bantex." The appellant countered that they had disclosed all necessary information, including their registration and periodical returns. The Tribunal found that the department failed to provide sufficient evidence that the appellant intentionally suppressed facts to evade duty. Consequently, the invocation of the extended period was deemed unjustified.

3. Burden of proof regarding brand name ownership:
The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the department to establish that the brand name used by the appellant belongs to another entity. The department did not present any documentary evidence to prove that "A.J. Bantex" is the brand name of the foreign company. The Tribunal referenced multiple cases, such as Varco Sara India (P) Ltd. v. CCE and Vikram International v. CCE, which held that the department must prove the ownership of the brand name to deny SSI exemption. Since the department failed to discharge this burden, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the benefit of SSI exemption and rejecting the extended period for demand. The decision was based on the appellant's right to use their registered company name and the department's failure to prove that the brand name belonged to another entity. The Tribunal's judgment aligns with established legal precedents, reinforcing the appellant's position.