TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudicating authority found that the two units viz., M/s. Mamma Products and M/s. Manna Products are different partnership firms having nothing in common except a few partners. While arriving at a conclusion for denying the benefit of SSI exemption Notifications the adjudicating authority found that M/s. Manna Products are also using the brand name 'summer treat' and M/s. Mamma Products have failed to prove that the brand name is not owned by M/s. Manna Products. This conclusion obviously traverses the settled dictum of law that the person who raise the allegation has to prove the same. In the instant case the department ought to have proven that the brand name is actually owned by M/s. Manna Products and M/s. Mamma Products and M/s. Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exemption Notfns. No. 8/98, dated 2-6-98 and 8/99, dated 28-2-99. II. The Order-in-Original is not legal and proper and hence annulled." 2. Ld. SDR arguing for the Revenue submitted that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of the exemption Notfn. No. 8/98 (subsequently 8/99) as in his statement dated 17-12-98, Shri Shajimon Joseph, one of the partners of the assessee company had admitted that they were using the brand name 'summer treat' from 1998. It is stated that they were aware of the fact that another firm M/s. Manna Products were using the same brand name right from 1996 for identical products. Therefore, the benefit of the Notification cannot be extended. In this regard he relied on the judgment of the Madras ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by them. He pointed out that in the citations referred to by the ld. SDR the question was not of a common ownership of the brand name used by two persons but the brand name was owned by another independent person and it was used by the SSI Unit and hence the benefit was denied. He relied on the judgment by the Tribunal in the case of Elex Industries v. CCE, Chandigarh [2003 (158) E.L.T. 602] wherein the use of brand name by co-owners has been held to be eligible for the benefit of notification. He also relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Elex Knitting Machinery Co. v. CCE, Chandigarh [2003 (158) E.L.T. 499] wherein also the brand name was used by two co-owners and it was held to be eligible for the benefit of notification. He a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endered in the case of CCE, Ahmedabad v. Vikshara Trading Investment P. Ltd. [2003 (157) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.)] wherein the Revenue appeal was rejected and upheld the Tribunal's finding wherein it was held that the trade name need not necessarily be in respect of all goods unless registration has been so required and it has been further held that its permissible in law to have same brand name for having different class of goods owned by different persons and held that the Notfn. No. 223/87-C.E. was applicable. The Tribunal in the case of Elex Knitting Machinery Co. (supra) has clearly held that when the brand name is used by co-owners then the benefit of Notfn. No. 1/93-C.E. cannot be denied. The Bench in the case of CCE, Cochin v. Geo Engineer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
