9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 692 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - use of brand name - brand name belongs to assessee or not? - Revenue s claim is that the goods of the respondents bearing the brand name RIAT connect to M/s RMT who are the owners of the said brand to leverage its goodwill and simultaneously avail the benefit of SSI Exemption - whether for the purpose of N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003 the respondents were owners of the brand which they were using on the machines manufactured by them? - Held that - While deed of dissolution gave the right to use the RIAT trade mark to respondents the other partners also committed that they would have no objection to registration of the above trade mark by retiring partners and shall give no objection certificate for the same. Subsequent to that the respondents had taken registration for RIAT brand under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 for Centreless Grinding Machines Planning Machines Surface Grinding Machines vide Registration No. 457653 on 30.11.1999 and for Round Bar Straightening Machines on 15.10.2001. Thus they became owners of the brand from 30.11.1999 / 15.10.2001 respectively - Commissioner has rightly concluded that the brand name was the trade mark registered in the name of the respondents prior to the period of demand under the SCN which is from 2003-04 (26.8.2003-03/2004) to 2007-08. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Ownership of brand name RIAT for availing SSI Exemption under Central Excise Tariff. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the ownership of the brand name "RIAT" used by the respondents on various machines for availing SSI Exemption under the Central Excise Tariff. The Revenue contended that the respondents were leveraging the goodwill of the brand name RIAT, originally owned by M/s RMT, to benefit from the SSI Exemption. The Commissioner had dropped the proceedings under the show cause notice, prompting the Revenue to appeal before the Tribunal. The crucial issue for determination was whether the respondents were the rightful owners of the brand name RIAT, as required for availing the SSI Exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. The Revenue relied on Clause 10 of the Deed of Dissolution dated 1.9.1978, arguing that the ownership of the brand rested with M/s RMT, and the respondents had limited use rights. However, the Tribunal analyzed the Commissioner's interpretation of Clause 10, which was subject to Clauses 8 and 9 of the Deed of Dissolution. The Tribunal found that the respondents had acquired the right to use the RIAT trademark for specific machines and had obtained registrations under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, making them the owners of the brand from the respective dates of registration. The Tribunal distinguished the case from precedents cited by the Revenue, highlighting that the respondents had become owners of the brand for the specific machines in question. It referenced judgments emphasizing joint ownership of brand names by different entities and upheld the Commissioner's findings. The Tribunal concluded that the respondents were the rightful owners of the brand name RIAT for the relevant machines, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal. In light of the detailed analysis and the specific provisions of the Deed of Dissolution, the Tribunal found no error in the Commissioner's order and upheld the decision in favor of the respondents. The appeal filed by the Revenue was consequently dismissed, affirming the ownership rights of the respondents over the brand name RIAT for availing the SSI Exemption under the Central Excise Tariff.
|
