9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 120 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - clearance of goods under the brand name of another person or not - HELD THAT - In the absence of the Appellant s providing any evidence that they were the brand name owners, irrespective of the fact that whether it was registered in their name or not and the market s perception that brand name belonged to somebody else, it is not possible to consider that it did not belong to others. In fact, in this case, sufficient evidence is on record by way of statements and other relied upon documents to the effect that these brand names/trade names were belonging to SRCPL and Farmax. The Appellants reliance on the case law cited is not relevant. In the case of COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD IV VERSUS M/S. STANGEN IMMUNO DIAGNOSTICS 2015 (6) TMI 155 - SUPREME COURT , the issue in the said case was whether two different parties were using the same trademark and logo simultaneously in their own rights, which is not the case here as it is clearly the case where the Appellant has failed to prove that they were the owners of the brand name/trade name of STOP and TODAY . The Hon ble Supreme Court observed that the Assessee, in this case, is using brand name as the owner thereof itself, and was not using brand name as belonging to some other person - The Hon ble Supreme Court further observed that the central idea contained in the aforesaid definition is that the mark is used with the purpose to show connection of the goods with some person who is using the name or mark and therefore, in order to qualify as brand name or trade name , it has to be established that such mark, symbol, design or name, etc., has acquired the reputation of the nature that one is able to associate the said mark with the manufacturer. In this case, as rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there is sufficient evidence to clearly establish that brand name or trade name belonged to other persons viz., SRCPL/Farmax and not to the Appellant. Further, there is nothing on record to establish that the Appellants were perceived to be the brand name owner for STOP and TODAY in the market. The Order of Commissioner (Appeals) is based on correct appreciation of facts and legal provisions and therefore, the same need not be interfered with - Appeal filed by appellant dismissed.
Issues involved:
The main issue in this case is whether the Appellant was clearing goods under the brand name of another person or not. Details of the judgment: 1. The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing mosquito coils, was found to be supplying to two parties under the brand names "STOP" and "TODAY." The department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) alleging that the Appellant was not meeting the conditions of an exemption notification, as the brand names belonged to other persons. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and penalties, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) except for one penalty. The Appellant appealed against this decision. 2. The Appellant's representative argued that for denial of exemption, the brand name must belong to someone else and be used in trade to indicate a connection. The representative highlighted that the Appellant did not prove ownership of the brand names "STOP" and "TODAY." The Revenue relied on a case law to support their contention that where there is an owner of a registered trademark, the benefit is not available to the Appellant. 3. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal examined the evidence. It was established that the brand names were linked to the other parties, SRCPL and Farmax, who had applied for trademarks and used the names on packaging. The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to provide evidence that they owned the brand names. The Tribunal referred to the definition of brand name/trade name in the notification. 4. The Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient evidence to show that the brand names belonged to SRCPL and Farmax, not the Appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld, as it correctly analyzed the facts and legal provisions. The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant. 5. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 04.12.2023. This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues involved in the legal judgment and the Tribunal's decision on each issue.
|
