2018 (2) TMI 127 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - use of brand name - demand on the ground that he is manufacturing the water filter parts under the brand name of MEIL - Held that - the matter has already travelled upto Tribunal and there is no discussion or finding in the earlier orders of the Tribunal on the issue of appellants being a manufacturer or a trader. As already observed the first order of the Tribunal upheld the Revenue s stand on classification of the goods as falling under Chapter Heading 84.21 and the second order passed on ROM directed the lower authorities to examine the applicability of SSI benefit. As such, it would not be proper for us to go beyond the earlier orders of the Tribunal and to discuss the issue of the appellants being a manufacturer or not. Brand name - Held that - the brand name Mahaan was endorsed in his name only with effect from 01.04.1998. The lower authorities have already granted the benefit to the appellants, for the period post 01.04.1998. Nothing more is required to be considered at this stage. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of SSI exemption benefit to manufacturers of "parts of Steel Water Filters" under the brand name 'Mahaan'.
2. Classification of goods under Tariff Heading 84.21.
3. Applicability of small-scale exemption Notification No.16/1997-CE.
4. Manufacturer vs. trader distinction regarding duty liability.
5. Ownership of the trademark 'Mahaan' and its impact on exemption benefit.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, manufacturers of "parts of Steel Water Filters" under the brand 'Mahaan', were denied the SSI exemption benefit due to the usage of the brand name 'Mahaan' by another entity. The appellants argued that they were not the manufacturers but engaged job workers for production. The original adjudicating authority confirmed the demand, leading to penalties. The Tribunal remanded the matter to examine the SSI exemption's applicability.

2. The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's classification of goods under Tariff Heading 84.21 but did not address the SSI exemption issue initially. Upon a rectification application, the Tribunal remanded the matter to lower authorities for SSI exemption evaluation, leading to the present impugned orders in the remand proceedings.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the trademark 'Mahaan' was registered in the assessee's name post a specific date, affecting the SSI exemption benefit. The benefit was extended post-registration date, and demand was confirmed for the previous period, with a penalty set aside. The appellants contended they were traders, not manufacturers, as goods were produced by job workers.

4. The Tribunal found no discussion on the manufacturer vs. trader issue in previous orders. It upheld the Revenue's classification decision and directed examination of SSI benefit. The Tribunal declined to delve into the manufacturer vs. trader debate, stating it was inappropriate to go beyond previous orders. The appellants' argument of not being manufacturers was dismissed.

5. The ownership of the 'Mahaan' trademark impacted the SSI exemption benefit, granted post-registration date. The lower authorities had already extended the benefit accordingly, and no further consideration was deemed necessary. The Tribunal rejected the appeal, affirming the lower authorities' decision on the SSI exemption.

This detailed analysis highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, tribunal decisions, and the impact of trademark ownership on the SSI exemption benefit in the given case.