9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (11) TMI 1419 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of Small Scale Exemption in terms of Notification No.8/01 - Using of brand name of another person Held that - The appellants were also manufacturing the identical goods i.e. centrifugal pumps, which was being manufactured by M/s. Kalsi Engineeers in the brand name of Prince cannot be held to be a reflecting upon their bonafide intention Assessee being in the same business is expected to know about the ownership of the brand name, which they are putting on the goods manufactured by them - there is intention on the part of the appellants to use the brand name Prince which belonged to M/s. Kalsi Engineeers Decided against Assessee
Issues:
1. Entitlement to small scale exemption and benefit under notification No. 8/01-CE. 2. Use of brand name belonging to another person. 3. Confirmation of duty, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalty. 4. Reduction of penalty by Commissioner (Appeals) and appeal by Revenue. 5. Applicability of limitation period under section 11A of the Central Excise Act. 6. Intent of the appellant in using the brand name of another manufacturer. Analysis: Issue 1: Entitlement to small scale exemption and benefit under notification No. 8/01-CE. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Centrifugal submersible pumps and Centrifugal pumps under the brand name 'Prince,' faced proceedings challenging their entitlement to small scale exemption and benefits under notification No. 8/01-CE due to the use of a brand name registered under another company. Issue 2: Use of brand name belonging to another person. The Revenue contended that the appellant used the brand name 'Prince,' registered under M/s. Kalsi Metals Works, without authorization, leading to proceedings initiating a demand for duty, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties. Issue 3: Confirmation of duty, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalty. The Assistant Commissioner proposed duty confirmation, confiscation of goods, and a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand and confiscation but reduced the penalty, which was appealed by the Revenue. Issue 4: Reduction of penalty by Commissioner (Appeals) and appeal by Revenue. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal against the reduced penalty, citing lack of evidence regarding the appellant's knowledge or intention in using the brand name of another entity. Issue 5: Applicability of limitation period under section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The appellant argued that even if the demand was within the limitation period, their lack of intention to exploit another's brand name should negate the demand, citing legal precedents such as Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Bhalla Enterprises and Vetcare Organics P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore. Issue 6: Intent of the appellant in using the brand name of another manufacturer. The Revenue argued that the appellant knowingly used the brand name 'Prince' owned by M/s. Kalsi Engineers, located nearby, to convey a false representation to the public. The Tribunal found that the appellant's use of the brand name indicated an intention to benefit from its association with the established brand. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing the appellant's awareness of using the brand name belonging to another entity and dismissing the arguments based on the cited legal precedents, as the circumstances of the case differed significantly from those in the referenced judgments.
|
