9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 691 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - brand name - denial on the ground that appellant are using the brand name of Goldmedal which was owned by M/s. Bright Electrical - Held that - reliance placed in the case of COLLECTOR OF C. EX., AHMEDABAD Versus VIKSHARA TRADING & INVEST. P. LTD. 2003 (8) TMI 49 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA where it was held that When as a matter of fact it is held that there was an assignment in favour of the first respondent and that fact was not in serious dispute the mere fact that the assignment was not registered could not alter the position - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Claim of SSI exemption denied due to the use of a brand name 'Goldmedal' owned by another entity. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against the denial of Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption to the appellant, engaged in manufacturing main switchgear and fuses unit, due to their use of the brand name 'Goldmedal' owned by M/s. Bright Electrical. The appellant argued that they were assigned the brand name under an agreement with M/s. Bright Electrical and that the brand name was not linked to the main switchgear and fuses unit. The appellant contended that they were entitled to the SSI exemption as they were using the brand name within the prescribed limit. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the appellant could not use the brand name belonging to another entity. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was accepted that the appellant was entitled to use the brand name 'Goldmedal' and cited a Supreme Court case to support the decision. The Tribunal found no reason to sustain the impugned order and set it aside, allowing the appeal filed by the appellant. This judgment highlights the importance of ownership and assignment of brand names in relation to claiming SSI exemption. It clarifies that if a brand name is assigned to an entity under a valid agreement, and it is not linked to the specific goods for which the exemption is sought, the entity may be entitled to the exemption. The judgment also emphasizes the legal principle that the registration of a trademark is not necessary for using the same brand name for different classes of goods owned by different persons. The decision underscores the need for a thorough examination of the ownership and usage rights of brand names in cases involving eligibility for tax exemptions.
|
