2015 (8) TMI 1051 - SC - Central Excise

Benefit of SSI exemption - Use of brand name of others - Notification No. 16/97-C.E., dated 1-4-1997, 8/98-C.E., dated 2-6-1998 and 8/99, dated 28-2-1999, from 1-4-1999 - Respondent is using symbol/monogram on packing material in which finished products are packed - Held that - Revenue, has submitted that the case of the Revenue is that in order to avail the benefit of the aforesaid Notification and to claim the SSI exemption, the Sanghi Group of Companies floated the respondent-company and allowed it to use the said mark/monogram. To put it otherwise, the submission is that it is a camouflage adopted by the respondent to wrongly avail the benefit. However, we find that no such case was set up in the show cause notice issued by the authorities and therefore, such a plea cannot be allowed to be used for the first time in the present appeal, more so, when it is a pure question of fact. Keeping in view the aforesaid, particularly going by the allegations made in the show cause notice, insofar as the present case is concerned, the Revenue cannot succeed. - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of SSI exemption under Notification No. 16/97-C.E., 8/98-C.E., and 8/99.
2. Validity of using a monogram for identification.
3. Allegation of camouflage to wrongly avail benefit.

Interpretation of SSI exemption under Notification:
The case involved a respondent availing the benefit of SSI exemption under various notifications. The Revenue issued a show cause notice denying the exemption due to the use of a monogram on packing material. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand, but the Commissioner in appeals set aside the order, stating the monogram was a house mark for group identification, not a brand name for product identification. The Commissioner also referenced a circular allowing exemption even if a trademark is registered in favor of two manufacturers. The CESTAT upheld the Commissioner's order, emphasizing the in-house nature of the monogram.

Validity of using a monogram for identification:
The Supreme Court, in the present appeal, found that the monogram used by the respondent was solely a house mark for group identification, not a brand name for product identification. The Court cited a previous judgment where a similar interpretation was made, supporting the view that the monogram belonged to the Sanghi Group and was not a third-party mark. The Court held that the case aligns with the precedent, emphasizing the in-house nature of the monogram and dismissing the Revenue's contentions.

Allegation of camouflage to wrongly avail benefit:
The Revenue argued that the respondent used the monogram as a camouflage to wrongly avail the SSI exemption. However, the Court noted that such a case was not raised in the show cause notice, and introducing it for the first time in the appeal was impermissible, especially since it was a factual matter. The Court emphasized that the Revenue's case lacked merit based on the allegations in the show cause notice, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Commissioner's interpretation regarding the use of the monogram for group identification, affirmed the in-house nature of the monogram, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal due to the lack of merit in the allegations raised post the show cause notice.