2016 (11) TMI 856 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - reliance placed on the decision of the case of Kali Aerated Water Works Vs. CCE, Madurai 2015 (6) TMI 226 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that appellant has been using its own brand name Kalimark and it belongs to the appellant - Held that - Keeping in view of the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court in the above said judgement, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to re-examine the issue afresh, since the impugned order was passed in the year 2004 and the Apex Court judgement came up on 13.05.2015. In between, 11 years have been passed and the right title and ownership of the trade mark has been settled by the Apex Court - The authority is directed to issue notice to the appellant within three months of receipt of this order and granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and shall consider the defence plea and pass a reasoned and speaking order. It is expected that the authority shall pass order within one month from the late date of hearing of the matter - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Ownership of trade mark and eligibility for SSI exemption benefit under various notifications.

In this case, the appellant was denied the SSI exemption benefit under certain notifications due to the use of the brand name of others. The Department argued that the appellant did not qualify for the exemption based on a Supreme Court judgment involving a similar case where ownership of the trade mark was established. The High Court had issued an interim direction for the appellant to deposit 50% of the excise duty demand and provide security, but it was unclear if the appeals had been disposed of. The Tribunal noted that the ownership of the trade mark had been settled by the Supreme Court in the previous case. Considering the principles established in the Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh examination, given the significant time lapse since the original order in 2004 and the Supreme Court judgment in 2015. The authority was directed to issue a notice to the appellant, provide a reasonable opportunity for a hearing, consider the defense plea, and deliver a reasoned order within one month from the last date of the hearing. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a fresh assessment based on the clarified ownership of the trade mark.