2017 (7) TMI 59 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - Held that - Clause 6 of this agreement deals with Trade Mark and Logo. It states that J.V. Company will be entitled to use the Trade Mark and Logo of the Germany Company. We do not find any provision of assignment of the said Trade Mark to the assessee-Appellants. As such we find no merit in the submissions made by the assessee-Appellants regarding their eligibility for SSI exemption - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2000-CE for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.12.2000.
- Brand name usage and collaboration with a German company.
- Interpretation of Trade Marks Act, 1999 regarding retrospective registration.
- Assignment of Trade Mark from the German parent company to the assessee-Appellants.
- Calculation of duty liability based on gross amount received.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2000-CE for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.12.2000. The assessee-Appellants, a private limited company in collaboration with M/s Tigril, Germany, used the brand name and logo of the German company. The original authority confirmed Central Excise Duty liability and imposed penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand for the period 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2001 but ruled in favor of the assessee-Appellants for the subsequent period.

2. The counsel for the assessee-Appellants argued that the brand name registration with retrospective effect should entitle them to SSI exemption. However, the Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, UP, emphasizing that SSI benefit is for industries without a brand advantage. The Tribunal held that retrospective registration of a Trade Mark does not extend SSI exemption benefits, citing the principle of deemed equivalence under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

3. The Tribunal noted the agreement between the German parent company and the assessee-Appellants regarding the Trade Mark and Logo usage. While the counsel claimed assignment of the Trade Mark, the Tribunal found no such provision in the agreement. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding SSI exemption eligibility but allowed re-calculation of duty liability based on the gross amount received, considering no Central Excise Duty mentioned in sale documents.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, except for allowing the modification in duty liability calculation. The judgment emphasized the importance of brand name usage, collaboration agreements, and the legal interpretation of Trade Marks Act provisions in determining eligibility for SSI exemption and duty liability calculations.

5. The appeal was disposed of on 27.06.2017 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, providing a detailed analysis of the issues involved and the legal principles applied in the judgment.