9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 216 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - entire case is based on the determination of the rights to use brand name between the appellant and Prince Care Pharma Private Limited - penalty - HELD THAT - It could appear that registration of the such deeds is not necessary when the facts are not in dispute. This issue has also been examined by Tribunal in the case of Que Pharma Pvt Ltd wherein relying on the decision of Hon ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of JEPIKA PAINTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2008 (1) TMI 359 - HIGH COURT MADHYA PRADESH benefit of small scale exemption has been extended in case of an unregistered assignment deed. Merely because deed of assignment of brand name was not registered cannot be held that the appellant did not own the brand name. Consequently, benefit of small scale exemption cannot be denied. The penalty imposed on Shri Sureshbhai Jivrajbhai Sakariya is also set aside and appeal is allowed - Appeal allowed.
Issues: Determination of rights to use brand name, validity of assignment agreement, consideration for brand name assignment, registration requirement for assignment deed, eligibility for small scale exemption, imposition of penalty.
Analysis: The case involved appeals filed by M/s. Prince Web and Shri Sureshbhai Jivabhai Sakaria regarding the use of the brand name "Price Care" assigned to them by Ms. Prince Care Pharma Pvt Ltd. The dispute centered around the eligibility for benefits under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 based on the validity of the assignment agreement and deed of assignment of the brand name. The appellants argued that the assignment of the brand name was valid as they had provided marketing services to Prince Care Pharma Pvt Ltd, which constituted consideration for the assignment. They contended that the registration of the assignment deed was not necessary, citing precedents that supported their position, including the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Jepika Paint 2008 (232) ELT 424 (MP). The Tribunal examined the issue of registration requirement for assignment deeds and held that the absence of registration did not negate the ownership of the brand name by the appellants. Relying on previous cases such as Que Pharma Pvt Ltd 2013 (288) ELT 563 (Tri. Ahm.) and Sadana Foods-2012 (284) ELT 257 (Tri.-Bang.), the Tribunal emphasized that small scale exemption benefits could not be denied solely on the basis of unregistered assignment deeds. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellants. The penalty imposed on Shri Sureshbhai Jivrajbhai Sakariya was set aside, and the appellants were deemed eligible for the benefits under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. In conclusion, the judgment revolved around the validity of the assignment of the brand name "Price Care" to the appellants and the consideration provided for the assignment. The Tribunal clarified that registration of assignment deeds was not a prerequisite for establishing ownership of the brand name and upheld the appellants' eligibility for small scale exemption benefits.
|
