Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (2) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (2) TMI 856 - AT - Central Excise


Issues:
1. Interpretation of brand name for SSI exemption under Notification No. 9/2002-CE.
2. Determination of ownership of the logo "AMTECH" and its usage.
3. Assessment of time bar for filing classification declaration under Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The case revolved around the interpretation of the brand name for SSI exemption under Notification No. 9/2002-CE. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing electronic goods, affixed the logo "AMTECH" to their products. The issue arose when it was discovered that another company, M/s. Amtech Electronics (India) Limited, also used the same logo. The appellant argued that "AMTECH" was their house mark and not a brand name, citing relevant judgments. However, the tribunal found that the logo "AMTECH" in a specific design and font, shared by both companies, constituted a brand name as per the notification's definition. The tribunal emphasized that even a monogram or invented writing could be considered a brand name, leading to the denial of SSI exemption to the appellant.

2. The ownership of the logo "AMTECH" was a crucial aspect of the case. The appellant claimed that M/s. Amtech Electronics (India) Limited had their brand name "AXPERT" registered, which they did not use. However, the tribunal noted that M/s. Amtech Electronics (India) Limited had been using the "AMTECH" logo since 1987, predating the appellant's incorporation in 1997. This established them as the unregistered owner of the "AMTECH" brand. The tribunal concluded that the appellant's use of the same logo constituted the use of another company's brand name, rendering them ineligible for the SSI exemption.

3. Regarding the time bar, the appellant argued that they had been filing classification declarations under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, mentioning "AMTECH" make goods without disclosing the specific design and writing of the logo. The tribunal found this to be a suppression of facts, as the unique design was not disclosed to the department. Consequently, the tribunal upheld the demand for duty, ruling that the appellant was not entitled to the SSI exemption under Notification No. 9/2002-CE due to the usage of the brand name and the suppression of relevant information in the classification declaration.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the appellant's use of the "AMTECH" logo, shared with another company, constituted the use of a brand name, leading to the denial of the SSI exemption. The decision highlighted the importance of disclosing all relevant information to the authorities and the implications of using a brand name belonging to another entity in claiming exemptions under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates