2000 (12) TMI 498 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. due to the use of a similar brand name.
2. Confiscation of goods, demand of duty, and imposition of penalty on the appellants.
3. Dispute over the ownership and eligibility of the brand name "COX."
4. Interpretation of CBEC Circular No. 52/52/94-CX regarding the use of a trade name.
5. Applicability of previous tribunal decisions in similar cases.
6. Alternative plea regarding the eligibility of SSI unit for exemption.
7. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty without contravention of Central Excise Rules.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. to the appellants due to the use of the brand name "COX," which was also used by another manufacturer. The lower authority found a trade nexus between the goods of the appellants and the other manufacturer, leading to the denial of exemption benefits.

2. The Central Excise authorities confiscated goods, demanded duty, and imposed a penalty on the appellants for allegedly using a brand name belonging to a non-eligible entity. This action was based on the belief that the appellants were not entitled to SSI exemption under the relevant notification.

3. The advocate for the appellants argued that the brand name "COX" used by the appellants was distinct from the one used by the other manufacturer. She emphasized that the brand name was not a registered trademark and questioned the department's failure to prove ownership of the brand name and its ineligibility for the exemption.

4. Reference was made to CBEC Circular No. 52/52/94-CX, which clarified that units using a trade name not owned by a specific person could still be eligible for the exemption. The appellants contended that this circular supported their case and highlighted the need for conclusive evidence regarding brand ownership for denial of exemption.

5. Previous tribunal decisions, including Rukmani Packwell Traders and Union of India v. Pillkiyar Soda Factory, were cited to support the contention that mere similarity in brand names does not establish ownership. The appellants argued that the burden of proof regarding brand ownership and eligibility for exemption had not been met by the department.

6. The appellants also presented an alternative argument that even if the brand name belonged to the other manufacturer, who was an SSI unit, they should still be eligible for the exemption. This plea aimed to demonstrate that denial of the exemption was unwarranted in their case.

7. The JDR argued that the brand name "COX" was used by the other manufacturer and was a registered trademark, indicating that the appellants failed to prove ownership or eligibility for the exemption. The tribunal, after considering the arguments and evidence, rejected the appeal, holding that the appellants had not proven that the brand name did not belong to an eligible entity for the exemption.