Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 856 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - use of housemark - brand name or not - the appellant affixed logo AMTECH to the goods manufactured by them. During the investigation it was found that another Company M/s. Amtech Electronics (India) Limited affixed the same logo AMTECH to the goods manufactured by them - Held that - Though the appellant have strongly argued that the appellant are using the house mark, therefore, the SSI exemption cannot be denied merely by using their own house name. However, on perusal of the name and design, we find that the logo AMTECH in a particular design is same and the same is affixed on the product by M/s. Amtech Electronics (India) Limited as well as on the appellant product - If at all the appellant had intention to use the AMTECH as their house name, it should not be in the same font and design as was used by M/s. Amtech Electronics (India) Limited . Therefore, it cannot be said that the AMTECH logo used by the appellant is a house name whereas being a specific design and in specific font with common design of AMETCH used by both the companies cannot be treated as house name but the Brand name as defined under Notification No. 9/2002-CE. In the present case, the monogram in a particular design and in a particular writing being used by M/s. Amtech Electronics (India) Limited much before the incorporation of the appellant company, therefore, the same logo/ monogram used by the appellant is clearly the use of brand name of another company. As regard, the ownership of AMTECH even though it is not registered with M/s. Amtech Electronics (India) Limited, they are unregistered owner of name, logo/monogram, AMTECH , for the reason that the Amtech Electronics (India) Limited is in existence, since, 1987 and appellants company was incorporated in 1997, therefore, M/s. Amtech Electronics (India) Limited being a prior user of monogram AMTECH they are the owner of AMTECH brand. Time Limitation - Held that - The appellant in the declaration simply mentioned the description as AMTECH make but it is bearing monogram of AMTECH in a particular design and writing. This fact was not disclosed in the declaration or otherwise by the appellant to the department, therefore, there is a suppression of fact on their part. The appellant is not entitled for SSI exemption N/N. 9/2002-CE. - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
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.
|