9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (5) TMI 245 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - use of brand name / logo of others - emboss a logo of the alphabet K on the pumps manufactured by the appellants Held that - appellants are using the brandname of M/s. VKPIPL in the form of logo/monogram K on their products and hence they are not entitled to the benefit of small scale exemption on such products, appeal dismissed
Issues:
Denial of small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93 due to the usage of brandname, interpretation of the brandname usage, impact of Technology Agreement, consideration of relevant circular, remand by Supreme Court for fresh decision, examination of the letter 'K' as a brandname, determination of entitlement to small scale exemption. Analysis: The original authority and lower appellate authority denied the small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93 to the appellants for using the brandname of another entity, M/s. VKPIPL. However, the Tribunal overturned this decision, stating that the use of the alphabet 'K' as a logo did not constitute using the brandname of another person, citing Circular No. 52/94-CX. Upon appeal by the Department, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Supreme Court emphasized the Tribunal's responsibility to analyze and discuss factual findings before taking a contrary view. The Tribunal was directed to consider all relevant issues and decisions in rendering a reasoned decision. During subsequent hearings, arguments were presented regarding the usage of the letter 'K' as a logo, not a brandname, by the appellants. The Department contended that the 'K' letter indicated a trade connection and was a brandname belonging to M/s. VKPIPL, thus disqualifying the appellants from the small scale exemption. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence and arguments from both sides, including the cited circular of the Board. It was observed that the 'K' logo was not commonly used by various pump manufacturers, and statements from directors indicated its use as a logo/monogram, aligning with the definition of 'brandname' in the Notification. The Tribunal further highlighted the physical presence of the 'K' monogram on the pumps, indicating a trade connection and brand association. The argument that M/s. VKPIPL and the appellants produced different types of pumps was dismissed, referencing a Supreme Court precedent on brandname usage on different goods. The Technology Agreement between M/s. VKPIPL and the appellants, along with the close link between the companies, reinforced the Tribunal's conclusion that the appellants were using the brandname of M/s. VKPIPL through the 'K' logo, thus rendering them ineligible for the small scale exemption. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, dismissing the appeal and affirming that the appellants were not entitled to the small scale exemption due to the usage of the brandname 'K' associated with M/s. VKPIPL. Judgment delivered on 6-6-2011 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, CHENNAI.
|
