2004 (4) TMI 119 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Whether M/s. Satyam Enterprises are manufacturing excisable goods bearing the brand name of another person, making them ineligible for the benefit of Notification No. 8/2000-C.E., dated 1-3-2000.

Analysis:
The appeal filed by the Revenue questioned whether M/s. Satyam Enterprises were producing excisable goods with brand names belonging to others, thus disqualifying them from availing benefits under Notification No. 8/2000-C.E. The Revenue contended that the brand names 'Takai', 'Taiwa', 'Calvin', and 'Venus' affixed on speaker columns by M/s. Satyam Enterprises were not their own, as admitted by one of the partners. The Deputy Commissioner had confiscated the goods and imposed penalties based on this admission. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, stating that the brand names were general, and the Revenue failed to prove ownership. The Revenue argued that once ownership admission was made, the burden shifted to the respondents to prove the other person was eligible for the exemption. The Revenue cited a precedent to support this argument.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that using general names as brand names, not owned by anyone in particular, was common practice. They relied on a circular placing the onus on the Department to prove brand ownership. The Tribunal noted that the benefit of the notification does not apply to goods with brand names of another person, registered or not. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the Revenue did not establish ownership of the brand names affixed by the respondents. Without identifying the brand owner, the Revenue could not claim a trade connection. A precedent cited by the Revenue involved a different scenario where brand ownership was proven. Since the Revenue failed to name the brand owner in this case, the appeal was dismissed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, emphasizing the importance of proving brand ownership to establish a trade connection. Without such proof, the benefit of the notification could not be denied based on general brand names. The lack of evidence linking the brand names to a specific owner led to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal.