9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 599 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption (benefit of N/N. 08/2003 Central Excise dated 01.03.2003) - Exemption denied on the ground that the appellants were using brand name of another person - HELD THAT - The logo Touch wood was used by the appellant as a manufacturer and the appellant has applied for registration with Trade Marks Registry. M/s SKPL has merely applied for registration of trademark logo Touch wood therefore it cannot be alleged that the appellant is using trademark of another person. In fact appellant is a manufacturer of goods under the said logo and SKPL has merely applied for registration of said logo for trading of goods. Furthermore the logo Touch wood was registered in the name of the appellant and the application filed by M/s SKPL for registration of touchwud logo is rejected by Trademark Registry. he logo Touch wood was used by the appellant as a manufacturer and the appellant has applied for registration with Trade Marks Registry. M/s SKPL has merely applied for registration of trademark logo Touch wood therefore it cannot be alleged that the appellant is using trademark of another person. In fact appellant is a manufacturer of goods under the said logo and SKPL has merely applied for registration of said logo for trading of goods. Furthermore the logo Touch wood was registered in the name of the appellant and the application filed by M/s SKPL for registration of touchwud logo is rejected by Trademark Registry. As the Trademark Registry has recognized the logo Sunshine used by M/s SKPL all different and registered the same in the name of the appellant. In that circumstances benefit of SSI exemption cannot be denied to the appellant - Further it is a fact of record that the logo Touchwud was registered in the name of the appellant and they are using the said logo as manufacturer whereas M/s SKPL has applied for registration of logo Touchwud being trader in their name and their application for registration has been rejected by the Trademark Registry. The appellant is not using brand name of another person and have not contravened Para 4 of the Notification No. 01/2003 Central Excise dated 01.03.2003 therefore is entitled to get the benefit of SSI exemption under the said notification - Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The denial of benefit of Notification No. 08/2003 Central Excise dated 01.03.2003 (SSI) exemption to the appellant based on the usage of another person's brand name. Summary: Issue 1: The appellant claimed the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2023 Central Excise but was denied due to the alleged usage of another person's brand name. The Revenue contended that the appellant contravened Para 4 of the notification by using the "Sunshine" brand name, which belonged to another company, SKPL. A show cause notice was issued proposing duty demand, interest, and penalties on both appellants. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. Issue 2: The appellant argued that they were entitled to the exemption as they did not contravene Para 4 of the notification. They claimed that the logos used by them were different from SKPL's logos and were registered under their own trademark. They also highlighted the shared ownership of the "Sunshine" logo with SKPL. The appellant further contended that the "Touchwud" logo did not belong to SKPL, as their application for registration was rejected. They emphasized that the logo was registered in their name, establishing ownership during the dispute period. Issue 3: The Revenue maintained that the logos used by the appellant belonged to SKPL, thereby disqualifying them from the exemption. They cited various legal precedents to support their argument. Judgment: The Tribunal found that the logos used by the appellant and SKPL were distinct, with the Trademark Registry recognizing them as such. As the appellant's logos were registered under their own trademark, they were deemed the rightful owners. Consequently, the appellant was held not to be using another person's brand name, entitling them to the SSI exemption under the notification. In conclusion, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed.
|
