9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 393 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - use of Brand name - N/N. 8/2003-CE dt. 01.03.2001 - Held that - Ultimately the logo of the Appellant was held to be deceptively similar and they were restrained from using said logo which debars them claiming any ownership of said logo ab-initio. Even the application for registration was not filed by the Appellant company but by one of the directors in their individual capacity and hence the Appellant never showed or exercise their ownership upon said logo. Even if the goods were supplied by the Appellant to OEM manufacturer then too they are not entitled to claim any benefit of the exemption notification in question - the Appellant Unit is not eligible for the benefit under exemption notification in question and are liable for duty. Personal penalties imposed upon Shri Kishore M. Vasant and Shri A. K. Agarwal - Held that - issue involved is one of interpretation of notification - it cannot be said these persons were involved in intentional duty evasion - penalties set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Appeal against Order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise - Eligibility for SSI Exemption Notification - Ownership of trademark - Duty demand on goods bearing another person's brand name - Exported goods duty liability - Personal penalties imposition - Interpretation of notification - High Court involvement in brand name issue. Analysis: The appeals were filed against the Order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai - III, regarding the eligibility of M/s DEEPL Electricals Pvt. LTD. for the SSI Exemption Notification. The appellant was engaged in manufacturing Control Panel Accessories with the brand "DAV" affixed on products owned by M/s DAV Industries. The investigation revealed that the appellant was not the owner of the trademark, leading to duty demand and penalties imposed. The appellant contended that their logo was different, and they supplied goods to OEM manufacturers, thus not falling under the notification's restriction and being duty-exempt for exports. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was restrained from using "DAV" by the High Court and had agreed to remove the logo as part of an out-of-court settlement with M/s DAV Industries, indicating they were not the trademark owners. The appellant's claim that until the disputed logo's registration, no one owned it was rejected. The Tribunal found the appellant's logo deceptively similar and restrained them from claiming ownership, as the registration application was filed by a director individually. The appellant was held liable for duty, except on exported goods, as they were not entitled to the exemption notification benefit. The duty demand was upheld, with a direction to reduce duty on export goods and adjust penalties accordingly. Regarding personal penalties on Shri Kishore M. Vasant and Shri A. K. Agarwal, the Tribunal considered the issue of notification interpretation and High Court involvement in the brand name matter. As there was no evidence of intentional duty evasion by these individuals, the penalties were set aside, and their appeals were allowed. All appeals were disposed of accordingly by the Tribunal. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld duty demand on goods bearing another person's brand name, except for exported goods, and reduced penalties for the appellant company. Personal penalties on individuals were set aside due to the interpretation of the notification and involvement of the High Court in the brand name issue.
|
