TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. (ii) Based on the information furnished by Audit that the assessee is not eligible for Small Scale Exemption, the Officers of the Department visited the factory premises of the assessee and investigated the matter. On verification, 17 Nos. of Banquet Series chairs were found with brand name marked F and bottom seat covers with a sticker on the bottom with the brand name as Featherlite Seating System (Pvt) Ltd., Bangalore . On further investigation in Stores, 3 parts namely Back Knob, Tension Knob and Handles with brand name as Featherlite written in slanting style were found. The brand name Featherlite belongs to M/s. Featherlite Corporation and the same appeared to have been used (by the assessee. The products of the assessee were shown along with other products of Featherlite brand in a common catalogue and sold in a show room which deals with other products of Featherlite . It appeared that the logo found in the invoices of the assessee and invented style of writing is owned by M/s. Featherlite Corporation. 2. Consequent to the completion of investigation, it was observed that the Respondents had cleared branded goods by wrongly availing SSI exemption Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion but the same is of the brand name of the assessee themselves. This is further supported by the sticker affixed on the bottom as M/s. Featherlite Seating System (Pvt.) Ltd., Bangalore found on them. It is well-settled that small-scale exemption is available for the products which is not affixed with any brand name, mark, symbol, writing, etc. of others. It is further well-settled that in order to deny the SSI exemption, it is necessary to establish that the brand name/logo/trade mark of others is actually affixed on the goods manufactured, and cleared and mere mentioning of the brand name in the invoices is not sufficient to deny the SSI exemption. It is also clarified that the brand name or trade name means, a name or mark such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some persons using such name or mark with of without any indication of the identity of that person . The brand name indicates a connection in the course of trade of the product with the owner of the brand. There is nothing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .C.) that even the sue of part of a brand name of trade name so long as it indicates a connection in the course of trade would be sufficient to disentitle the person form getting exemption under the Notification in the case of CCE v. Mahaan Dairies - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 239 (S.C.) held that even if the goods are different so long as the trade name or brand name of some other company is used, the benefit of the Notification would not be available and observed that once a trade name or brand name is used then mere use of additional words would not enable the party to claim the benefit of the Notification. (iv) The investigation by the department has revealed that the assessee has affixed the Brand name of Featherlite embossod on some of the components such as back knob, tension knob and adjustable arms/seat holder. It has been proved by the department that in respect of the consignment cleared through M/s. RJB Associates for M/s. Sudarshan Vidya Mandir vide Invoice No. 105, dated 10-5-2003 and invoice No. 121, dated 13-5-2003 were affixed with said brand name Feaiherlite . However, the Commissioner has accepted the contention of the Department in respect of only said particular ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Tribunal in the case of A.J. Bantex (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore [2008 (229) E.L.T. 582 (Tribunal) = 2008 (87) R.L.T. 135 (CESTAT - Bang.)] and Vetcare Organic P. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore [2004 (174) E.L.T. 337 (Tri. - Bang.)]. It is seen that the Respondent has registered with the Registrar of the Companies Featherlite Seating System (Pvt.) Ltd . If it is so, the Brand name affixed by them, Featherlite would belong to them only and not to anyone. It is also on record that there no entity claiming as Featherlite Seating System (Pvt.) Ltd. besides the Respondents. The ratio of the Tribunal judgment in case of A.J. Bantex (P) Ltd. (supra) is squarely applicable in this case and is in favour of the Respondents. The ratio of the Tribunal s decision in paragraphs 13 14 of the above said judgment is reproduced herein below :- 13. On a very careful consideration of the entire issue, we find that the appellants have registered the name of their company as A.J. Bantex Pvt. Ltd. This fact is not in dispute. It is seen that A.J. Bantex is the name the appellant company. We have also seen the Certificate of Incorporation. This fact is not in dispute. There is no evidence to show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned. Hence, they will also be covered by the Supreme Court decision in case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.). 14. In the case of Bhoruka Goldhofer Trailers Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore, even when the appellant used the name of the foreign collaborator Goldhofer and when the revenue proposed to deny the SSI exemption, the Tribunal held that Goldhofer is not Brand name of a Company. It was held that the Trailer did not have the Brand name of another person and the SSI exemption was given. In the present case, it is the case of the revenue that Bantex is the brand name of another company. Mere assertion is not sufficient and they should produce documentary evidence to show that A.J. Bantex is the Brand name of another company. Merely by seeing the name A.J. Bantex is on the products one will not associate in our view the products with the foreign company Bantex. It is for the Department to produce evidence. In any case, the decision taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vet care is squarely applicable to the present case. The appellant has every right to use their own company s name on their products. In any c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
