Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 120 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - clearance of goods under the brand name of another person or not - HELD THAT:- In the absence of the Appellant’s providing any evidence that they were the brand name owners, irrespective of the fact that whether it was registered in their name or not and the market’s perception that brand name belonged to somebody else, it is not possible to consider that it did not belong to others. In fact, in this case, sufficient evidence is on record by way of statements and other relied upon documents to the effect that these brand names/trade names were belonging to SRCPL and Farmax. The Appellants reliance on the case law cited is not relevant. In the case of COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD IV VERSUS M/S. STANGEN IMMUNO DIAGNOSTICS [2015 (6) TMI 155 - SUPREME COURT], the issue in the said case was whether two different parties were using the same trademark and logo simultaneously in their own rights, which is not the case here as it is clearly the case where the Appellant has failed to prove that they were the owners of the brand name/trade name of “STOP” and “TODAY”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Assessee, in this case, is using brand name as the owner thereof itself, and was not using brand name as belonging to some other person - The Hon’ble Supreme Court further observed that the central idea contained in the aforesaid definition is that the mark is used with the purpose to show connection of the goods with some person who is using the name or mark and therefore, in order to qualify as ‘brand name’ or ‘trade name’, it has to be established that such mark, symbol, design or name, etc., has acquired the reputation of the nature that one is able to associate the said mark with the manufacturer. In this case, as rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there is sufficient evidence to clearly establish that brand name or trade name belonged to other persons viz., SRCPL/Farmax and not to the Appellant. Further, there is nothing on record to establish that the Appellants were perceived to be the brand name owner for “STOP” and “TODAY” in the market. The Order of Commissioner (Appeals) is based on correct appreciation of facts and legal provisions and therefore, the same need not be interfered with - Appeal filed by appellant dismissed.
|