2017 (7) TMI 595 - HC - Central Excise

SSI exemption - use of brand name of others - whether the petitioners are entitled for the exemption from payment of duty on goods bearing the brand name of another person cleared from their factory in terms of the relevant Notifications? - Held that - The said issue has been finally decided in the assessee s own case in Kali Aerated Water Works vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Madurai, 2015 (6) TMI 226 - SUPREME COURT , wherein the appeal filed by the petitioner/assessee was allowed, and it was held that Trade name Kalimark Aerated Water Works and trade mark mentioned in the said agreement would remain vested in all the parties including the appellant and the appellant was also allowed to use the same - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notices demanding excise duty payment for goods cleared without duty payment. Entitlement to duty exemption for goods bearing another person's brand name.

Analysis:
The case involves writ petitions challenging show cause notices demanding excise duty payment for goods removed without duty payment. The key legal issue is whether the petitioners are entitled to exemption from duty payment for goods bearing another person's brand name. The issue was previously decided in the assessee's favor in Kali Aerated Water Works vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Madurai. The judgment highlighted the ownership of the brand name 'Kalimark' by the appellant, emphasizing the exclusive ownership rights within their marketing area. This ownership right was upheld by the Supreme Court in a related case. The CESTAT also ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing their appeals based on the settled legal position regarding brand name usage and eligibility for SSI exemption under relevant notifications.

The judgment extensively discussed the appellant's ownership of the brand name 'Kalimark' and its exclusive rights within the marketing area. The legal analysis emphasized the appellant's sole ownership as established through various documents, including trade mark certificates, a mutual agreement, and a Civil Court decree. The judgment cited precedents where the issue of using the brand name was settled in favor of the appellants, leading to the quashing of the show cause notices and allowing the writ petitions. The legal position established through previous judgments and the ownership rights over the brand name 'Kalimark' played a crucial role in deciding the case in favor of the petitioners.

In conclusion, the judgment relied on precedent cases and legal principles to determine the entitlement of the petitioners to duty exemption for goods bearing another person's brand name. The extensive analysis of ownership rights over the brand name 'Kalimark' within the marketing area, supported by relevant documents and previous judgments, led to the quashing of the show cause notices and the allowance of the writ petitions. The legal position regarding brand name ownership and eligibility for duty exemption under relevant notifications was pivotal in resolving the issues raised in the case.