9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 358 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - use of brand name/trade name of others - HELD THAT - A plain reading of Brand Name or Trade Name are explained under Notification No.08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 indicates that the brand name may or may not be registered and that it should indicate a connection between the owner and the product in course of the trade. In the instant case, the brand Mankoo is understandably a family surname which is affixed to their products. The family business started in 1971. Even after the three companies formed in 1981 after the demise of the founder, all the companies have been using the same brand name albeit with some negligible differences. There was no complaint, whatsoever, by the so-called registered owner of the brand i.e. Mankoo International Limited against the other two companies for using the said brand. Understandably, the families understand that the brand belongs to the family and not to any individual. This Bench has decided the issue in their own family group case on the use of same brand. This Bench relied upon the decision by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE-II VERSUS M/S. PETHE BRAKE MOTORS PVT. LTD. 2015 (5) TMI 491 - SC ORDER where in the Apex Court has observed that the respondent/assessee therein was not using the brand name of another person and the name used was the surname of the Director of the assessee viz. Pethe and therefore, such usage does not come under the exceptions for availment of benefit of SSI exemption - the case laws relied upon by the Department are not applicable as the facts of the cases are different. Appeal allowed.
Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is whether the appellant, engaged in the manufacture of power process falling under Chapter 84 of CETA, 1985, was eligible for the SSI exemption as per Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 despite affixing the label and logo of a brand name not registered in their own name. Summary: Issue 1: Eligibility for SSI exemption based on brand name usage: The appellant, M/s Mankoo Machine, faced allegations that they were not eligible for the SSI exemption due to the usage of the brand name "Mankoo" on their machines, which was claimed to be not their own. The Department registered a case based on an investigation by DGCEI, leading to a show cause notice confirmed with fines and penalties on the company and the Director. Details: The appellant's counsel argued that the brand "Mankoo" had a family connection dating back to the establishment of "Mankoo Industries" in 1954 by Sardar Bagh Singh. After his demise in 1981, the company split into three entities, including "Mankoo Machine Tools" (the appellant). The counsel contended that the usage of the brand was legitimate and not mala fide, as the family had a historical connection to it. They also highlighted that the Department was aware of this usage since 1995, and the extended period cannot be invoked. Issue 2: Interpretation of "brand name" for SSI exemption: The Tribunal examined the definition of "brand name" or "trade name" under Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, emphasizing that it signifies a connection between the owner and the product in the course of trade. The case revolved around whether the usage of the family surname "Mankoo" on the products indicated a legitimate connection or not. Details: The Tribunal observed that the brand "Mankoo" was a family surname used by all three companies formed after the founder's demise in 1981. There was no objection from the registered owner of the brand, "Mankoo International Limited," against the other two companies using the same brand. The Tribunal cited a previous decision in a similar family group case and a Supreme Court ruling to support the legitimacy of using a surname as a brand name within a family business context. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed Appeal No. 1283 of 2012 and Appeal No. 1284 of 2012, ruling in favor of the appellant based on the legitimate usage of the family surname "Mankoo" as a brand name, which did not disqualify them from the SSI exemption. The decision highlighted the historical family connection to the brand and the absence of any mala fide intent in its usage.
|
