2005 (1) TMI 430 - AT - Central Excise

Shared brand name disqualifies company from Small Scale Exemption Notification

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi ruled against M/s. Alamgir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., stating they were not entitled to the Small Scale Exemption ... SSI Exemption - Brand name Issues involved: Availability of Small Scale Exemption Notification benefit to the Respondents M/s. Alamgir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.The appeal filed by Revenue questioned whether the Respondents were eligible for the benefit of the Small Scale Exemption Notification. The case highlighted that the Respondents and another company, Tirupati Chemicals, shared a brand name and a monogram of a weighing scale. The Commissioner (Appeals) had initially granted the benefit of the Notification to the Respondents based on a brand name change from 'Tula' to 'ACPL.' However, the Revenue argued that the monogram of the weighing scale remained the same, making the Notification inapplicable. Citing a previous case, it was contended that even a partial use of a brand name indicating a connection in trade could disqualify the exemption. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of brand name under the Notification, emphasizing that any indication of connection between goods and a person using the name would prevent exemption eligibility. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that as the Respondents' goods bore the monogram of Tirupati Chemicals, they were not entitled to the Small Scale Exemption Notification benefit.In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi addressed the issue of whether M/s. Alamgir Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. could avail the benefit of the Small Scale Exemption Notification. The decision clarified that the presence of a shared brand name and monogram with another entity, as observed in this case, would disqualify the Respondents from the Notification's benefits. By interpreting the definition of brand name and considering the connection between the goods and the other company, the Tribunal ruled against the Respondents, aligning with the principle that any indication of trade connection through a brand name could negate exemption eligibility.