9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f brand name which is not belonging to any person has been examined in various cases by this Tribunal, wherein it is held that brand name which is free floating and not belong to a particular person the benefit of SSI exemption is not deniable - reliance can be placed in the case of AMPLE INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., RAJKOT [ 2007 (8) TMI 156 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] . The SSI benefit cannot be denied to the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. E/1335/2009 -[DB] - FINAL ORDER NO. 60711 of 2019 - Dated:- 20-2-2019 - HON BLE MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND HON BLE MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Naveen Bindal, Advocate for the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... brands Boxer, Lion, Coronation, Commando, Silver Oak, Regenoh, Orpat, Western and Badshah were only owned by the appellant firm. During the course of investigation, the department explained to the appellant that the brand names used by them were belonging to the other persons and hence the SSI exemption, which was claimed by them, was not admissible and the duty is required to be paid without availing the benefit of SSI exemption. The appellant agreed to the contention of the department regarding the brand names being used by them were belonging to others, and not owned by the appellant. The appellant also contended before the departmental officer that some of the plywoods are being traded also have been sold in their invoice as traded c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (ii) Commissioner of C.EX. Ahmedabad-I Vs. Abhishek Pharma Engineers 2011 (274) E.L.T. 524 (Tri. Ahmd.) (iii) M/s Leo Engineering Vs. Commissioner of C.EX.. Ahmedabad 2009 (241) E.L.T. 533 (Tri. Ahmd.) (iv) Laxmi Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Rajkot 2013 (298) E.L.T. 435 (Tri. Ahmd.). 4. Ld. advocate, therefore prayed for quashing of the impugned order by allowing their appeal. 5. Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue submits that in this case the appellant has agreed to the fact that they are not entitled for SSI exemption and as they are using the brand names belonging to the others and not only that, the appellants have also paid the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person; (B) Where the specified goods manufactured by a manufacturer bear a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another manufacturer or trader, such specified goods shall not, merely by reason of that fact, be deemed to have been manufactured by such other manufacturer or trader. This issue regarding the use of brand name which is not belonging to any person has been examined in various cases by this Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... small-scale exemption notification. The above clarification issued by the Board is based upon the opinion of the Law Ministry. In as much as in the present case also, the brand names do not belong to any particular manufacturer and are free for any assessee to use as such, we are of the view that the benefit of notification cannot be denied to the appellant on this ground. Similar findings have been recorded in the case of Abhishek Pharma Engineers (Supra), wherein it is held at para 5, 6 and 7 as under: 5. Accordingly, he held that the Revenue has failed to prove that the words Amba and Ambalica are the brand names belonging to any other persons. As such, he held that the use of said names, will n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... free to use the same. Any unit using such free names cannot be denied the benefit of notification. 7. The above Board s circular can be fairly applied to the facts of the present case inasmuch as the earlier order of Additional Commissioner had clearly held that the brand name Amba is not being used by M/s. Amba Engineers as their owner. He has also referred to many other units using the said brand name Amba . It is seen that such commonly available brand names without there being any specific owner of the same, are usually orphan brand names. They do not belong to any particular brand name owner. The Board s circular has clarified that use of such brand name will not result is denial of SSI exemption notification. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
