2018 (6) TMI 119 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption denied - duty demand - using the brand name of third party - exemption denied on the premises that the appellant is using the brand name Kohli owned by M/s RSV Industries (India) under the proprietor of Shri. Rajinder Kumar Kohli - Held that - The brand name being surname of the partner used by the appellants - See case of Pethe Brake Motors (P) Ltd 2015 (5) TMI 491 - SUPREME COURT wherein as held the respondent assessee was not using the branded name of another person and the name used was the surname of the Director of the assessee Thus appellant is entitled for benefit of SSI exemption under N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Denial of SSI exemption benefit under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 based on the usage of a brand name owned by a third party.

Analysis:
The appellant was engaged in manufacturing valves, cocks, and pipe fittings under the brand name 'Kohli,' which was owned by another entity. The Revenue contended that since the brand name belonged to a third party, the appellant was not entitled to the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant based on this premise.

The appellant argued that the brand name 'Kohli' was the surname of one of the partners of the firm, and cited a decision by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a similar case to support their claim. The appellant maintained that they should not be denied the SSI exemption benefit based on the usage of the surname 'Kohli.'

On the other hand, the Revenue contended that since 'Kohli' was not the surname of the appellant firm, they were not eligible for the SSI exemption under the said notification.

After hearing both parties and considering the submissions, the Tribunal observed that 'Kohli' was indeed the surname of one of the partners of the appellant firm. Citing a previous decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the demands against the appellant, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In summary, the judgment revolved around the interpretation of the usage of a brand name owned by a third party and its impact on the eligibility for SSI exemption under a specific notification. The Tribunal's decision highlighted the significance of the surname 'Kohli' being associated with one of the partners of the appellant firm, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal and the rejection of the demands made by the Revenue.