9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 485 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - use of Brand name of others - The case of the Department is that prior to 06.04.2011 the appellants were using the brand name BESTON which belonged to another person and were therefore not entitled to avail N/N. 8/2003-CE - Held that - The brand name belongs to Mr Prabha Dass Nathani, in whose name the brand was registered in the year 2005 and who happens to be the founder Director of the appellant company - Tribunal in the case of Anil Pumps Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE 2004 (12) TMI 134 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI have held that the benefit of SSI exemption is not deniable - SSI Exemption allowed. Valuation - rejection of transaction value - Held that - The basis adopted by Revenue for rejecting the valuation adopted by the appellant and revaluating the goods at enhanced price based on the international brand is not tenable - Rejection of value not justified - Appeal allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
Denial of SSI exemption and disputed valuation adopted by Revenue. Analysis: Denial of SSI Exemption: The case revolved around the denial of Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption and the disputed valuation adopted by the Revenue. The appellants were accused of using the brand name "BESTON," which allegedly belonged to another individual before its registration in the appellants' name. However, it was established that the brand name was registered in the name of the appellants from May 2005 onwards. The Tribunal cited previous decisions to support the appellants' entitlement to the SSI exemption, emphasizing that the brand name was a business asset acquired by the appellants when they took over the running business of BDP Corporation. Moreover, the appellants' bona fide belief in acquiring the brand name was supported by evidence, including the use of the brand name on their invoices and the absence of contraventions during investigations initiated in 2007. Therefore, the denial of SSI exemption was deemed unsustainable. Valuation Dispute: Regarding the valuation dispute, the appellants argued against equating the retail sale price of their product with that of a renowned brand like Philips without adequate justification. They contended that the market acceptability of a relatively unknown brand like "BESTON" should not be artificially equated with an established international brand. The demand for duty on goods seized in 2011, despite the brand name acquisition in 2011, was considered unjustified. The Tribunal found the Revenue's valuation argument untenable and supported the appellants' position. The valuation dispute was resolved in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that the brand name "BESTON" was not comparable to internationally renowned brands like Sony or Samsung. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the penalty on the appellant's Director was also revoked. In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi upheld the appellants' entitlement to the SSI exemption and resolved the valuation dispute in their favor. The decision was based on the registration of the brand name in the appellants' name, the acquisition of business assets, and the lack of justification for equating the appellants' product with established international brands.
|
