Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2013 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (2) TMI 466 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - Using brand/trade name of another - Assessee engaged in the manufacture of aluminum utensils - Chapter 76 of the Tariff - Under a brand name NIRLEP - Brand name of NIRLEP pertained to and was registered in the name of another - Notification No. 8/99 - Held that - Following the decision in case of RUKMANI PAKKWELL TRADERS (2004 (2) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)and MAHAAN DAIRIES (2004 (2) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) that it does not make any difference whether the goods on which the trade name is used are the same in respect of which the trade name is registered. Even if goods are different so long as the trade name of some other company is used, benefit of small scale exemption Notification is not available. In favour of revenue
Issues: Revenue's appeal against denial of benefit of Notification No. 8/99 due to the use of a registered brand name "NIRLEP" by the respondent in manufacturing aluminum utensils.
The judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI involved the Revenue's appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the denial of benefit under Notification No. 8/99 to the respondent, who was manufacturing aluminum utensils under the brand name "NIRLEP." The Revenue contended that the brand name "NIRLEP" belonged to a different entity and was registered in their name. A show-cause notice was issued to the respondent for using the brand name without authorization. The adjudicating authority initially dropped the proceedings, but the Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the brand name "NIRLEP" was registered only for specific kitchen containers and not for pressure cookers. The Tribunal referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rukmani Pakkwell Traders and Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Mahaan Dairies, where it was established that the use of a registered trade name, even on different goods, disqualifies the entity from availing benefits such as small scale exemption Notifications. Therefore, based on the Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the Revenue, concluding that the respondent was not entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 8/99 due to the unauthorized use of the registered brand name "NIRLEP" on their manufactured goods.
|