2016 (8) TMI 1061 - AT - Central Excise

Eligibility for ssi exemption - brand name - word Swadeshi appearing on the packing/wrapper of the soap manufactured by the respondent is the logo/brand name of Swadeshi Trading & Network Marketing Co. - Notifications 8/2001, 8/2002 and 8/2003 - Held that - in the absence of any evidence which contradicts the factual finding of the first appellate authority, we have to hold that the first appellate authority was correct in coming to a conclusion of setting aside the order-in-original. - Decided against the Revenue

Summary

Issues involved:
Whether the respondent is eligible for exemption under Notifications 8/2001, 8/2002, and 8/2003 based on the branding of their soap products with the word "Swadeshi."

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the order-in-appeal allowing the appeal filed by the assessee. The Revenue contends that the first appellate authority did not consider the issue properly, as the respondent affixed the logo "Swadeshi" of a marketing company on their products. The appeal also argues that the first appellate authority overlooked the fact that the show cause notice mentioned the marketing company's name on the labels and packaging. The Revenue asserts that the first appellate authority erred in stating that "Swadeshi" indicates indigenous products, a claim not made by the assessee. The issue is whether the respondent is eligible for exemptions under specific notifications based on the branding of their soap products with "Swadeshi."

The first appellate authority found that the word "Swadeshi" on the soap packaging did not establish a connection between the goods and the buyer company marketing it. The authority emphasized that the use of "Swadeshi" was descriptive and did not prove proprietary interest or a unique brand name for the marketing company. The authority cited legal provisions and judicial decisions to support the finding that "Swadeshi" alone did not constitute a brand name or establish a trade connection. The authority also addressed the issue of time-barring the demand for the period in question.

The Tribunal upheld the first appellate authority's decision, noting that the Revenue failed to provide evidence contradicting the factual findings. The Tribunal distinguished a previous judgment cited by the Revenue, emphasizing the absence of a clear connection between the products and the marketing company in the current case. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appeal and upheld the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal determined that the branding of the soap products with the word "Swadeshi" did not meet the criteria for exemption under the relevant notifications. The decision was based on the lack of evidence establishing a trade connection between the products and the marketing company. The Tribunal's analysis focused on legal definitions, precedents, and the specific facts of the case to reach a conclusion in favor of the respondent.