2006 (1) TMI 39 - AT - Central Excise

Central Excise SSI Exemption Brand name Department cannot denied SSI benefit on the ground that appellant used identification mark IRP on tyre flaps to evaluate performance of various products Eligible for SSI exemption

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of SSI exemption for using a company mark on supplied goods

Analysis:

The case involved a dispute where the Department initiated proceedings against the appellants and similar SSI units, denying them the benefit of SSI exemption for using the company mark 'IRP' (India Rubber Products) on the tyre flaps supplied to APSRTC. The appellants had affixed the mark 'IRP' on the outer cartons to help APSRTC identify the supplies as being made by IRP. The appellants argued that there was no use of the brand name 'IRP' on the products, and they relied on a previous ruling where similar appeals were allowed due to the absence of brand name usage. The Tribunal considered statements from involved parties and previous judgments to make a decision.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that there was no evidence of the appellants using the brand name or trade name on the supplied goods. Statements from relevant individuals, including the authorized signatory of M/s. India Rubber Products, indicated that the 'IRP' mark was used for identification purposes only, not as a brand or trade name. The Tribunal also referenced previous cases where similar issues were addressed, such as distinguishing between identification marks and brand names or trade marks. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue failed to prove the appellants used another person's brand name, and therefore, the judgments favoring the assessees applied to the case.

The Department relied on an Apex Court judgment where the benefit was denied due to clear use of a trade name by the holding company. However, the Tribunal found this case distinguishable from the current situation, where the use of the 'IRP' mark was solely for identification purposes. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed all appeals based on previous judgments and findings, providing consequential relief as necessary. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed the stay and appeals in favor of the appellants, following the Tribunal's ruling and established ratios.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeals and setting aside the denial of SSI exemption based on the use of the company mark 'IRP.' The decision was supported by the lack of evidence showing the appellants used the mark as a brand or trade name, in line with previous judgments and the Tribunal's established ratios.