2018 (5) TMI 108 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - use of brand name - case of Revenue is that the respondent have used the brand name RIAT SONS , whereas the brand RIAT belonged to another person i.e. M/s.RIAT Machine Tools - Held that - the respondent is using the brand name RIAT SONS while the brand name RIAT was owned by M/s.RIAT Machine Tools (M/s.RMT). Admittedly, both the brand names were registered with the trade mark authority and recognized as not similar. It is documented from the brand name registration certificate dated 24.9.2005 submitted by the respondent and from para 4 of the show cause notice that the brand name used by the respondent is RIAT SONS and by M/s. RMT is RIAT and the two brand names were not similar and were distinct brand names. In that circumstance, it cannot be said that the respondent is using brand name of another person - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Alleged wrongful availing of SSI exemption due to the use of a similar brand name.
- Dispute over the ownership and registration of the brand names 'RIAT' and 'RIAT SONS'.
- Validity of the show cause notice demanding Central Excise duty.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the alleged wrongful availing of the Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption by the respondent due to the usage of a brand name 'RIAT SONS' that resembled the brand 'RIAT' owned by another entity, M/s. RIAT Machine Tools (M/s. RMT). The Revenue contended that this usage was intentional to exploit the goodwill associated with the brand 'RIAT' while claiming the SSI exemption.

2. The dispute further delves into the ownership and registration of the brand names 'RIAT' and 'RIAT SONS'. The Revenue argued that the trademark 'RIAT SONS' was not registered in the respondent's name until 2005, questioning the genuineness of their claims. On the other hand, the respondent asserted that 'RIAT SONS' was a separate and distinct brand name registered in their name in 2005 for machines and machine tools.

3. Regarding the validity of the show cause notice demanding Central Excise duty, the appellate authority upheld the respondent's position, emphasizing that both 'RIAT' and 'RIAT SONS' were registered separately and recognized as distinct brand names by the trademark authority. The tribunal cited relevant case law, including judgments like Bhamber Engineers vs. CCE, Ludhiana, to support their decision that the respondent was entitled to the SSI exemption as the brand names were not similar.

4. After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the evidence on record, the tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the Revenue's appeal. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the brand names 'RIAT' and 'RIAT SONS' and affirmed that the respondent's use of 'RIAT SONS' did not constitute the use of another person's brand name, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

5. Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the respondent's use of 'RIAT SONS' did not infringe upon the brand 'RIAT' owned by M/s. RMT. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the brand name registration certificates and relevant case law to support its decision, ensuring a fair and thorough examination of the issues at hand.