2017 (3) TMI 543 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - brand name/trade name - Department was of the view that the mark TDPL affixed by the appellant on the insulators supplied to M/s TDPL for further supply to State Electricity Board was the brand name or trade name of M/s TDPL and hence the appellant would not be eligible for SSI exemption in respect of the insulators supplied which were affixed with the brand name TDPL which did not belong to them - Held that - Shri M. N. Mittal, Director of M/s TDPL in his statement dated 25.02.2010 has confirmed that such marks are required to be affixed on the insulators to facilitate the electricity boards to identify the supplier of insulator in case of rejection of the insulators by the Electricity Board. He has further clarified that these are not in the nature of brand name, but TDPL is only a mark required to be affixed on the insulator - It cannot be stated that the mark TDPL is a brand name owned by M/s TDPL - An identical issue already stands decided in favor of the appellant in the case of Avinash Prefabs vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore 1999 (9) TMI 549 - CEGAT, CHENNAI , where it was held that the words KEB which stand for Karnataka Electricity Board affixed on the goods cleared by M/s Avinash Prefabs cannot be treated as brand name or trade name and the SSI exemption cannot be denied to the goods affixed with the words KEB - the appellant will be entitled to the benefit of SSI N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of SSI exemption to appellant for affixing brand name "TDPL" on insulators supplied to M/s Taruna Decom Pvt. Ltd.

Analysis:
1. The appellant manufactured electric insulators availing SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/03-CE. The insulators supplied to M/s TDPL were affixed with brand name "TDPL." The department contended that "TDPL" was M/s TDPL's brand name, denying SSI exemption.
2. The Commissioner confirmed duty demand against the appellant, citing "TDPL" as M/s TDPL's brand name. The appellant appealed against this order.
3. The appellant argued that "TDPL" was not a brand name as per precedents. The department argued that "TDPL" qualified as a brand name under Explanation (A) to Notification No. 8/03-CE.
4. The dispute centered on whether "TDPL" was a brand name or a house mark for identification. The appellant asserted it was a house mark, not a brand name.
5. The Tribunal examined the purpose of affixing "TDPL" on insulators for identification, not as a brand name. The Director of M/s TDPL confirmed "TDPL" was a mark, not a brand name.
6. The Tribunal referenced a circular regarding castings with customer-specific marks not affecting SSI benefits. It concluded "TDPL" was not M/s TDPL's brand name.
7. Citing the Avinash Prefabs case, the Tribunal held that affixing customer names like "TDPL" did not disqualify SSI benefits. It set aside the duty demand and allowed the appeal.

This detailed analysis highlights the key arguments, precedents, and the Tribunal's decision regarding the denial of SSI exemption to the appellant for affixing the brand name "TDPL" on insulators supplied to M/s Taruna Decom Pvt. Ltd.