2006 (2) TMI 378 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of benefit of SSI Notifications
- Ownership of brand name "Tiger Brand"

Analysis:
1. Denial of benefit of SSI Notifications:
The Commissioner of Central Excise demanded duty and imposed a penalty on the appellants, denying them the benefit of SSI Notification Nos. 175/86-C.E. and 1/93-C.E. The Tribunal noted that this was the second round of litigation, with a previous direction for a pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs, which was complied with by the party. The Tribunal acknowledged that the deposit was still with the department. After examining the records and arguments from both sides, it was found that the appellants were clearing goods under the brand name "Tiger Brand," leading to the issue of whether this brand belonged to the appellants or others. The Tribunal considered a certificate issued to a different entity but noted that the proprietor of Sharada Paint Industries (the present appellants) continued to exercise ownership over the "Tiger" brand. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were not in violation of the relevant notifications and granted a waiver of pre-deposit and a stay of recovery for the penalty and duty amount.

2. Ownership of brand name "Tiger Brand":
The central issue in the case revolved around the ownership of the brand name "Tiger Brand" under which the appellants were clearing their products. The Tribunal examined a certificate issued to a different entity trading as Sharada Corporation, which included the "Tiger" brand. However, it was observed that one of the partners of Sharada Corporation had started a separate business under a different name, and the proprietor of Sharada Paint Industries (the present appellants) continued to assert ownership over the "Tiger" brand. Based on this analysis, the Tribunal determined that the appellants had the right to use the brand name during the disputed period, thereby justifying the waiver of pre-deposit and the stay of recovery for the penalty and duty amounts.