2018 (5) TMI 1410 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - use of brand name - Case of the department is that the appellant is manufacturing branded goods with the brand of Rastogi brand which belongs to some other firm - Held that - the goods manufactured and seized under the panchnama dated 09/10/2013 as well as the various invoices issued by the appellant for supply of goods to M/s Rastogi Steel Furnishers, Jaipur does not have mention of any brand on them - the department has not put forward any worthy evidence to prove that the appellant have been using the brand Rastogi or any other brand on the products manufactured and cleared by them, which could make them ineligible for availing SSI N/N. 8/2003 benefit. The department has failed to prove that the appellant has been using Rastogi or any other brand on their manufactured products. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003.
2. Allegation of using a brand name 'Rastogi' belonging to another firm.
3. Reliance on statements of individuals connected with the business.
4. Interpretation of brand name usage and family surname in business.

Analysis:

1. Eligibility for SSI Exemption: The appellant, engaged in manufacturing steel furniture, claimed the benefit of Notification No. 8/2003 for exemption from central excise duty due to turnover below 1.5 crores. The department contended that the appellant was manufacturing branded goods under the 'Rastogi' brand, challenging their eligibility for the SSI exemption. The Tribunal examined evidence, including statements and seized goods, to determine eligibility.

2. Allegation of Brand Name Usage: The department's case relied heavily on statements suggesting the appellant used the 'Rastogi' brand on their products. However, examination of seized goods and invoices revealed no mention of any brand name, casting doubt on the department's claim. The Tribunal referenced a previous case involving the same brand name and family surname, emphasizing that the use of 'Rastogi' as a family name did not disqualify the appellant from the SSI exemption.

3. Reliance on Statements: The department based its case on statements obtained from various individuals associated with the appellant's business. However, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to prove the appellant used the 'Rastogi' brand on their products, highlighting discrepancies between the statements and actual goods seized and invoiced. The Tribunal stressed the importance of substantial evidence to support such claims.

4. Interpretation of Brand Name and Family Surname: The Tribunal analyzed legal precedents and judgments, including the Supreme Court's ruling on the usage of surnames as brand names. It concluded that even if the appellant had used 'Rastogi' as a brand, being their family surname, it did not violate the SSI exemption criteria. Citing previous tribunal decisions, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's right to use the family name in business without infringing on any registered brand name, thus allowing them to avail the benefits under Notification 8/2003.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the department's order and confirming the appellant's entitlement to the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003. The judgment emphasized the distinction between family surnames and registered brand names in business operations, highlighting the importance of concrete evidence in establishing allegations of brand name usage.