2017 (6) TMI 805 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - Revenue was of the view that trade mark Basant is owned by M/s. Basant Mechanical Works, Ludhiana and the respondent is not entitled to used the brand name of other firm if they are availing benefit of SSI N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - Held that - the respondent is a proprietary ship concern, who is using the brand name of a partnership concern, where the proprietor of the respondent firm is a partner - the fact of this case are identical to the facts in the case of Elex Industries 2003 (9) TMI 418 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI , wherein this Tribunal has held that if the person who is using the brand name of another firm where he is a Director, Partner or Proprietor then it cannot be said that the assessee is using the brand name of other person - benefit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the grant of SSI Exemption Notification
- Interpretation of brand name ownership in relation to SSI exemption eligibility

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the grant of SSI Exemption Notification to the respondent by the adjudicating authority. The Revenue contended that the respondent, engaged in manufacturing Power Press under the brand name Basant, was not entitled to the SSI exemption as the brand name was owned by another entity. Proceedings were initiated against the respondent to deny the exemption and demand duty, interest, and penalty.

2. The Revenue argued that the respondent admitted to using the brand name owned by a partnership firm, distinct from the respondent's proprietorship. Citing precedents like Galaxy Sanitarywares and Royal Springs, the Revenue claimed that the exemption was not available to the respondent based on the ownership of the brand name by a separate entity.

3. The respondent's counsel opposed the Revenue's contention, citing the Elex Industries case where a similar issue was decided in favor of the appellant. The respondent's counsel highlighted that the Tribunal and High Court had upheld the benefit of exemption in cases where the brand name was used by a partner or director of another firm. The counsel also referenced the Famcom Rubber Products case and the Sanjay Agarwal case to support the argument that the exemption could not be denied based on brand name ownership.

4. Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal analyzed the facts of the case and compared them to the Elex Industries precedent. The Tribunal noted that the respondent, a proprietary concern, was using the brand name of a partnership where the respondent's proprietor was a partner. Drawing parallels to the Elex Industries case, the Tribunal concluded that when a person uses the brand name of another firm where they are a director, partner, or proprietor, it does not amount to using another person's brand name. As the facts remained undisputed, the Tribunal upheld the adjudicating authority's decision to grant the exemption, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

5. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and upheld the decision in favor of the respondent, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The judgment emphasized the importance of the relationship between the person using the brand name and the entity owning it in determining eligibility for SSI exemption.