2019 (10) TMI 884 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - case of the department is that the brand name Laxmen belongs to Sanjay Umrania, therefore, use of brand name by Laxman Metal Sawing Co was use of brand of another person - HELD THAT - There is no dispute of the facts that the brand name Laxmen was being used by M/s Lalita Machines Tools proprietorship concern of Sh. Sanjay Umrania and also by M/s Laxman Metal Sawing Co which is a HUF proprietorship concern and Sh. Sanjay Umrania is Karta of said HUF, therefore, there is no dispute that both the firm belong to the same family members. In this position, it cannot be said that one is using the brand name of others. The appellant is entitled for SSI exemption - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellant is entitled to the SSI exemption for using the brand name 'Laxmen' in the manufacture of excisable goods.

Analysis:
The case involved the HUF Proprietor Firm M/s Laxman Metal Sawing Co, engaged in manufacturing excisable goods using the brand name 'Laxmen', which was also used by another unit owned by Sh. Sanjay Umrania. The department contended that the brand name belonged to Sanjay Umrania, thus the appellant was not eligible for the SSI exemption. The appellant argued that both units belonged to the same family and, therefore, it cannot be considered as one using the brand name of the other. The appellant cited relevant judgments to support their claim.

The Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order and cited judgments to strengthen their argument. Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that both firms belonged to the same family, with Sh. Sanjay Umrania being the proprietor of both units. It was established that the brand name 'Laxmen' was used by both firms. Relying on a previous decision in the case of Shreeji Enterprise, the Tribunal concluded that if the brand name was used by firms of the same family member, it could not be construed as one using the brand name of another person.

Based on the Tribunal's interpretation of the facts and relevant legal precedents, it was held that the appellant was indeed entitled to the SSI exemption. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The judgment emphasized the importance of familial ownership in determining brand name usage for the purpose of claiming exemptions under the law.