2017 (12) TMI 1485 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - use of brand name or others - Held that - the same Commissioner in respect of the another unit using the same name has taken a view that there is a difference in the nature of logo and the word Lakshmi which was used by the assessee and held by order dt. 24/04/2008 that the assessee is entitled for SSI exemption as they are not used brand name or trade name of another - The learned Commissioner has also relied upon the decision in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. and other decisions which have now been relied upon by the Revenue to come to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled for SSI benefit as they have not used the same brand name belonging to another company - SSI exemption allowed - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order passed by Commissioner(Appeals) dismissing appeals of appellants.
- Eligibility for SSI exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE.
- Allegation of using brand name 'Lakshmi' belonging to another unit.
- Judicial precedent on simultaneous use of similar trademarks.
- Threats from another party regarding trademark infringement.
- Previous decisions by the same Commissioner in favor of appellant.
- Bona fide belief of appellant regarding entitlement to SSI exemption.
- Defense of impugned order by the respondent.

Analysis:
1. Appeal against Commissioner(Appeals): The appellants challenged the order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) dismissing their appeals. The appellants, a manufacturer of wet grinders, had been availing exemption under Notification No.8/2003-CE and were not registered under Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner(Appeals) confirmed the demand for duty and imposed penalties, leading to the present appeals.

2. Eligibility for SSI Exemption: The main issue revolved around the eligibility of the appellants for SSI exemption under the notification. The appellants argued that they were not using the brand name 'Lakshmi' belonging to another unit, citing judicial precedents and differences in logos. They contended that the brand name usage was not established, making them eligible for the exemption.

3. Trademark Infringement Allegation: The appellants faced allegations of using the 'Lakshmi' brand name owned by another party. They presented evidence of legal actions taken against threats of trademark infringement, including a civil suit and court judgments in their favor. The lack of subsequent actions by the other party supported the appellants' claim of non-infringement.

4. Judicial Precedent and Commissioner's Decisions: The appellants relied on previous decisions by the same Commissioner in favor of another unit facing similar issues. These decisions, along with the acceptance of subsequent appeals by the Department, strengthened the appellants' argument for entitlement to SSI exemption based on the differences in logos and brand names.

5. Bona Fide Belief and Defense: The appellants maintained a bona fide belief in their entitlement to SSI exemption, supported by various judicial decisions. The respondent, however, argued against the appellants' eligibility based on the popularity of the 'Lakshmi' brand name. The defense cited relevant case laws to support their position.

6. Final Decision: After considering submissions and precedents, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellants. Citing the Commissioner's decisions in the appellant's favor for a subsequent period and the lack of appeal by the Department, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable in law. The appeals were allowed, providing consequential reliefs to the appellants.