2017 (1) TMI 411 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - Held that - the assessee has incurred heavy expenditure on the publicity by using the brand name of rollin . The said brand name was used by different companies viz. appellant and M/s A.K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. The benefit of SSI has already been availed by M/s A.K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. when it is so then the benefit cannot be extended to the appellant - rollin is qualified to be considered as a brand name, though it was not registered. The brand name (unregistered) is owned by Rolling Industries Pvt. Ltd. and the present appellant has used the brand name of the other company for clearing the goods manufactured by them. Therefore, the appellant is not eligible for exemption. Appeal disposed off - decided against appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of brand name for exemption under Notification No. 8/2000.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 67-CE/DLH/08 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Delhi. The appellant, a proprietary concern, was involved in using the name 'rollin' in various publications and materials. The department held that 'rollin' was a brand name owned by M/s A.K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Consequently, the appellant was deemed ineligible for exemption under Notification No. 8/2000, leading to a demand for duty, interest, and a penalty.

The appellant argued that 'rollin' was merely a household name and not a registered brand name, usable not only by A.K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. but also by other group concerns. Citing the decision in CCE, Chandigarh-II Vs. Bhalla Enterprises, the appellant contended that both the appellant and other group concerns were entitled to use the name 'rollin.' Additionally, financial hardship was pleaded, supported by an affidavit stating the closure of M/s Anubhav Enterprises and lack of cash balance.

The department, represented by the ld. AR, upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and relied on previous decisions to support their stance. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments and case laws presented. It differentiated the cited cases dealing with medicines or food items from the current matter involving the interpretation of 'brand name.' The definition of 'brand name' was crucial, emphasizing its usage in trade to establish a connection between the product and the entity using the name.

The Tribunal concluded that 'rollin' qualified as a brand name, despite being unregistered, due to heavy expenditure on publicity and shared usage by different companies. Since M/s A.K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. had already availed SSI benefits using the brand name, the appellant could not extend the same benefit. The registration of the brand name was deemed irrelevant for exemption consideration. As the unregistered brand name was owned by Rolling Industries Pvt. Ltd., and the appellant used it for clearing goods, the Tribunal held the appellant ineligible for exemption. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, emphasizing the non-necessity of brand name registration for exemption eligibility.