9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 789 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Benefit Under Notification No.175/86-CE and Notification No.1/93-CE - Benefit of the Notification was denied to the appellant in respect of certain branded goods cleared from their factory - Held that - The appellant could not have claimed SSI benefit in respect of the branded goods - Following TRUPTI MULTI SERVICES Versus COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE 1998 (3) TMI 321 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI - The affixture of the brand name on the package rather than on the goods contained therein would not make Notification No.175/86-CE/No.1/93-CE inapplicable - The appellant s claim for SSI benefit under Notification No.175/86-CE and Notification No.1/93-CE was hit by para (7) and para (4) respectively of the notifications - Each of these barred SSI exemption to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who was not eligible for grant of exemption under this Notification. Assignment of Brand Name - Whether the brand name was assigned to the appellant by its owner to be used in India - Held that - Nothing contained in the trade mark agreement could be taken into account while deciding - The mere right of the appellant to use the brand name of the foreign company pursuant to an agreement between the two cannot entitle the appellant to contend that it ceased to be the brand name of the foreign company Decided against Assessee.
Issues:
1. Denial of SSI benefit under specific Notifications due to brand name ownership. 2. Applicability of SSI exemption to branded goods cleared under a foreign brand name. 3. Interpretation of Notification provisions regarding brand name affixation. 4. Claim for SSI benefit based on brand name usage and ownership. 5. Effect of trade mark agreement on brand name assignment. 6. Rejection of SSI benefit claim due to brand name connection with foreign manufacturer. 7. Dismissal of plea of limitation raised at a later stage. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal involved a dispute over the denial of SSI benefit to the appellant due to the ownership of a brand name under specific Notifications. The appellant claimed that as the brand name was assigned to them and used exclusively in India, they should be considered the brand name owner. The adjudicating authority initially dropped the duty demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision, leading to the present appeal. 2. The core issue revolved around whether the SSI exemption applied to goods cleared under a foreign brand name. The appellant argued that the brand name was affixed only on the packages, not the goods themselves, and thus, the SSI benefit should not be denied. However, the Tribunal found that the connection between the goods and the foreign brand name owner rendered the SSI benefit inadmissible, citing relevant case law and Notification provisions. 3. The interpretation of Notification provisions regarding brand name affixation played a crucial role in the judgment. The Tribunal analyzed the specifics of how the brand name was used, emphasizing that affixing the brand name on the packages still linked the goods to the foreign manufacturer, thereby disqualifying the appellant from claiming SSI benefit. 4. The appellant's claim for SSI benefit was based on arguments related to brand name ownership, usage, and the absence of royalty payments to the brand name owner. They also cited relevant case law to support their position. However, the Tribunal concluded that the brand name connection with the foreign manufacturer was the determining factor in disallowing the SSI benefit claim. 5. The relevance of a trade mark agreement in establishing brand name ownership during the disputed period was highlighted. The Tribunal noted that the agreement presented by the appellant did not conclusively prove the brand name assignment, leading to a rejection of its significance in the decision-making process. 6. The judgment emphasized that the brand name connection with the foreign manufacturer was decisive in rejecting the SSI benefit claim. The Tribunal cited precedents and Notification provisions to support its finding that the brand name affixation on the packages established a trade link between the goods and the foreign brand name owner, making the SSI benefit inapplicable. 7. Lastly, the Tribunal dismissed the plea of limitation raised at a later stage, emphasizing that new arguments introduced during the appeal process could not be entertained. The judgment affirmed the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appellant's appeal based on the findings related to brand name ownership and usage.
|
