Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2023 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1303 - SC - Central ExciseSSI exemption - use of brand name of others - use of brand name of others - benefit of exemption under Notification dated 01.03.2002 bearing No.8/2002-Central Excise denied - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad IV Vs. Stangen Immuno Diagnostics [2015 (6) TMI 155 - SUPREME COURT], wherein this Court while considering an earlier judgment in Bhalla Enterprises [2004 (9) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT] has noted the observations that if the assessee is able to satisfy the assessing authorities that there was no such intention or that the user of the brand name was entirely fortuitous and could not on a fair appraisal of the marks indicate any such connection, it would be entitled to the benefit of exemption. An assessee would also be entitled to the benefit of the exemption if the brand name belongs to the assessee himself although someone else may be equally entitled to such name. In the present case, there was a usage of a well known brand name SUNCA by the appellant(s), although it was registered by M/s. Sun Fat (Holding) Co. Ltd., which did not make a difference to the denial of the benefit of exemption to the appellant(s). The observations of this Court in Bhalla Enterprises has been culled out in the form of a test laid down in Stangen Immuno Diagnostics [2015 (6) TMI 155 - SUPREME COURT]. A reading of judgement clearly indicates that in order to deny the benefit of exemption under the Notification, it must be established by the Department that (1) the goods in respect of which the exemption is sought use the same or similar brand name; (2) the said brand name is used with an intention of indicating a connection with the Assessees goods and such other person; and (3) use of such a brand name is to indicate such a connection. The appellant(s) in the instant case is manufacturing emergency lamps and, therefore, the use of brand name SUNCA in the instant case is only fortuitous, being no intention on the part of the appellant(s) to use the said brand name to show a connection with M/s. Sun Fat (Holding) Co. Ltd. The show cause notices were issued on an erroneous premise inasmuch as the Department itself had changed its line of arguments before CESTAT - Appeal allowed.
|