TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1086
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 27/02/2013. As the issue involved in these matters are common, all these appeals are taken up together for decision. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Sakshi Battery Industries and M/s Mandideep Rubber Products are engaged in the manufacture of electrical storage batteries liable to Central Excise duty. The present dispute relates to their liability to Central Excise duty in respect of these batteries on the ground that they have manufactured batteries with the brand name of others. Such usage of brand name will exclude them from the benefit of Notification 8/2003-CE dated 01/03/2003 as amended. The notification stipulates that the exemption of small scale industry shall not apply to specified goods which bear a brand name or trad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have asked the respondents to manufacture and supply batteries with specific names and, hence, SSI exemption cannot be extended to such batteries. 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the registered brand names were duly assigned by mutual agreement and same has been taken note of by the Commissioner (Appeals). There is no need for registering such assignments with the Trade Mark Authorities as the same is not relevant to Central Excise purpose. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. The same is referred to later in this order. Regarding TURBOTEK he submitted that it is not a brand name belonging to any person. It is a generic name and it was only later registered by M/s Mandideep Rubb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uation as to deny the exemption. We also note that registration of assignment cannot be put as a condition to establish the fact of assignment. Apparently, no registration of such assignment is contemplated or possible in respect of unregistered brand names. The notification bars availability of SSI exemption even to the manufacturer who uses unregistered brand name of another person. Keeping these facts in view, we find that the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is sustainable. 5. Regarding the other brand names which are unregistered, alleged to have belonging to other persons, we note that the evidences submitted did not categorically establish the ownership of such brands with any other specific person. The impugned order examined ....