2017 (1) TMI 371 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - Held that - the appellant did not support their plea in the appeal to the effect that they have not manufactured and cleared goods with the brand name of another person. Overwhelming evidence as recorded by the lower authorities has not been rebutted effectively by the appellant - reliance placed in the case of Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, U.P. 2007 (3) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA where it was held that the burden is on the assessee to satisfy the adjudicating authority that there was no intention of indicating a connection of goods of assessee with another person - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over small scale exemption eligibility due to the use of another person's brand name "Archies."

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods, was availing small scale exemption and not registered with the Central Excise department. Investigations revealed they were manufacturing goods with the brand name "Archies" belonging to another entity. The original order demanded Central Excise duty, confiscated goods, and imposed penalties, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

The appellant argued that during the material time, the "Archies" brand name was not registered with another person. They claimed to have only sold a small number of photo frames with the brand name in question. Additionally, they contended that most of their clearances were without any brand name or with their own brand "SMILE," challenging the denial of small scale exemption.

The respondent countered the appellant's claims, presenting evidence of a significant quantity of photo frames and packing materials with the "Archies" brand name found during investigations. The appellant's use of the brand name was admitted, and the respondent highlighted a civil suit between the appellant and the rightful owner of the brand name, emphasizing the duty liability confirmation.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant had indeed manufactured and cleared goods with the "Archies" brand name, despite objections to their brand name registration application and a court order restraining its use. The seizure of substantial quantities of goods and materials with the brand name indicated non-compliance. Legal precedents were cited to emphasize that using another company's brand name disqualifies from exemptions. A settlement agreement between the appellant and the brand owner further supported the findings.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found the appellant's arguments unsubstantiated against the overwhelming evidence presented by the respondent. The lower authorities' findings were upheld, and the appeal was dismissed, emphasizing the appellant's failure to prove their innocence regarding the unauthorized use of the brand name "Archies."