9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (10) TMI 647 - AT - Central ExciseDenial of SSI exemption - manufacture of own branded goods as well as the products which are to be marketed by some other person - use of other s brand name - N/N.8/05-CE dated 1.3.2005 - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, TRICHY Versus GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. 2005 (4) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA relied upon - Held that - the issue in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. is that the assessee was using the brand name of M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. with the purpose of indicating a connection between the product i.e. the cement manufactured by them, and M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. which is a well known cement manufacture. It is contended is that the words M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. are neither a brand name nor a trade name. It is contended that mere use of the name of a company does not amount to using a brand name or trade name of some other company - the facts of the case is entirely different, and not applicable for the present case. The decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., KOLKATA-III Versus PAUL AQUOMIN & FOOD (P) LTD 2009 (6) TMI 299 - CESTAT, KOLKATA covers similar issue and is relied upon where it was held that it is not necessary that the name or the writing must always be a brand name or a trade name in the sense that it is normally understood. The exemption is only to such parties who do not associate their products with some other person. The label merely indicates the party who is merely marketing the product and hence exemption available. Appellant entitled to avail SSI exemption of Notification No.8/05-CE dated 1.3.2005 - demand of duty not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against denial of SSI exemption under Notification No.8/05-CE dated 1.3.2005, duty demand, interest, and penalty imposition. Analysis: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing medicine, appealed against the denial of SSI exemption under Notification No.8/05-CE dated 1.3.2005, leading to duty demand, interest, and penalty imposition. The dispute arose as the appellant was manufacturing products under their brand as well as products marketed by other parties, with the allegation that they were manufacturing branded goods of others. The Revenue contended that the goods marketed by other parties bore their brand names, thus disqualifying the appellant from the SSI exemption. The appellant argued that their case aligned with a Tribunal decision in a similar matter. The Tribunal analyzed the situation, noting that the appellant produced goods under their brand and products merely marketed by others, not using the brand names of those marketing companies. The Tribunal referred to a case involving packaged drinking water marketed by Mother Dairy, where it was clarified that indicating "marketed by" a company did not constitute using the brand name of that company. The Tribunal emphasized that the label only indicated the marketing party, not the brand owner. The Tribunal distinguished cases cited by the Revenue, highlighting that the appellant did not associate their products with another brand, aligning with the SSI exemption criteria. The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. Another case involving a similar issue was cited, reiterating that mentioning a marketing agent's name did not equate to using a brand name. The Tribunal differentiated cases where the brand name was used to establish a connection with another company, which was not the situation in the present matter. Relying on past Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant qualified for the SSI exemption, overturning the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. In summary, the Tribunal's analysis focused on the distinction between manufacturing under one's brand and products marketed by others, clarifying that indicating the marketing company's name did not constitute using their brand name. By aligning with past Tribunal decisions, the appellant was deemed eligible for the SSI exemption, leading to the rejection of the duty demand and the allowance of the appeal.
|
