Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 244 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - use of brand name of another person - Brand Roopkala owned by family and used by the appellant being one of the family member - N/N. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - HELD THAT - The fact is not under dispute that the brand Roopkala belongs to a family and the same is used by different members of the same family. It is also found that either side have no objection in use of Roopkala brand. Moreover, the appellant is using the Club Roopkala and the allegation is that the appellant is using the brand name of another person i.e. Roopkala . Firstly, even if the same brand name is used by two family members, it cannot be said that one is using the brand name of another person. The appellant is entitled for SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues involved: Whether the brand "Roopkala" owned by a family and used by the appellant can be treated as the use of another person's brand name to deny the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003.
Summary: The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, consisting of HON'BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MR. RAMESH NAIR and HON'BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MR. RAJU, addressed the issue of whether the brand "Roopkala" owned by a family and used by the appellant could be considered as the use of another person's brand name to deny the SSI exemption. The appellant did not appear, but submitted a detailed synopsis and relied on various judgments. The revenue, represented by Shri Sanjay Kumar, supported the impugned order. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the brand "Roopkala" belonged to a family and was used by different family members, with no objections from either side. The appellant displayed the name "Club Roopkala" on invoices, while other family members used the brand "Roopkala." The Tribunal noted that using the same brand name within a family did not constitute the use of another person's brand. The judgments cited by the appellant supported their case regarding family-owned brands. As a result, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeals. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 22.12.2023.
|