2019 (1) TMI 614 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - use of brand name - basis of allegation of the department is that since, the brand name Shree Aditya was registered in the name of the director, hence, SSI exemption to the appellant company was not available during the impugned period - Held that - Hon ble Division Bench s decision in case of Anil Pumps (P) Ltd. Vs CCE 2004 (12) TMI 134 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) wherein the identical issue has been decided in favour of the assessee and it was held that by using these brand names in the appellants company wherein he is Director, he cannot be said to had used brand name of another person. This decision was upheld by the Apex Court 2010 (4) TMI 1171 - SUPREME COURT - the appellants are held entitled to SSI exemption - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of SSI exemption based on the registration of a brand name in the name of the director instead of the company.
2. Applicability of SSI exemption when the company uses a brand name registered in the name of the director.
3. Legal precedent regarding the denial of SSI exemption based on brand name registration.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Denial of SSI exemption based on brand name registration
The case involved four appeals against an Order-In-Original passed by the Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur, pertaining to the denial of SSI exemption to the appellant company. The department alleged that since the brand name 'Shree Aditya' was registered in the name of the director, the SSI exemption was not available to the company during the relevant period.

Issue 2: Applicability of SSI exemption with director's registered brand name
The appellant company had been using the brand name 'Aditya' on its products since its inception, despite the director registering the brand name 'Shree Aditya' in his name. The appellant argued that the registration of a different brand name by the director should not disqualify them from SSI exemption, citing past legal precedents where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee.

Issue 3: Legal precedent regarding denial of SSI exemption
The appellant relied on the decision in the case of Anil Pumps (P) Ltd. Vs CCE, where it was held that if the director, who is also a part of the appellant company, registers a brand name in his name, it does not amount to using the brand name of another person. This legal position was further supported by the case of CCE Vs Sanjay Agarwal, emphasizing that the benefit of exemption should not be denied when the brand name is registered in the name of the managing director who previously used the same brand name for manufacturing goods.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned order and holding the appellants entitled to SSI exemption based on the established legal precedents, including the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CCE V/s Anil Pumps (P) Ltd.