Tribunal Upholds Confiscation of Branded Goods for Unauthorized Use

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi upheld the Order-in-Appeal confirming the confiscation of branded goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty on the appellants for using brand names 'Turnado' and 'Yamaha' without proper license/registration. The Tribunal found that the appellants did not own the brand names as they claimed, leading to the dismissal of their appeal. This case underscores the importance of ensuring proper ownership and registration of brand names to comply with Central Excise laws and avoid legal liabilities and penalties.

---

---

Issues:
Contestation of correctness of impugned Order-in-Appeal confirming confiscation of branded goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty. Ownership of brand names 'Turnado' and 'Yamaha' used in manufacturing goods by the appellants.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi involved a challenge to the correctness of the Order-in-Appeal confirming the confiscation of branded goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty, as detailed in the Order-in-Original by the adjudicating authority. The appellants contested the ownership of the brand names 'Turnado' and 'Yamaha' used in manufacturing the goods, claiming they belonged to them. However, the Tribunal found from the record that 'Turnado' was owned by M/s. Sung Porn Co. Ltd., Taiwan, with M/s. Kobian India Pvt. Ltd. as their sole distributor in India, and 'Yamaha' was registered in the name of M/s. Electro Equipment Enterprises, New Delhi. Although the appellants had applied for registration of these brand names, they had not been accorded to them. Consequently, the Tribunal held that by using brand names without proper license/registration from the Central Excise, the appellants were liable for penal action. Therefore, the confiscation of their branded goods and the imposition of redemption fine and penalty were deemed reasonable. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal of the appellants.

This judgment highlights the importance of proper ownership and registration of brand names when manufacturing goods to avoid penal consequences under Central Excise laws. It emphasizes the need for businesses to ensure legal compliance and authorization in using brand names to prevent confiscation and penalties. The decision underscores the significance of verifying ownership rights and obtaining necessary licenses or registrations to avoid legal liabilities and penalties in the course of business operations.

---