2014 (7) TMI 106 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Confiscation for Brand Infringement with Reduced Penalty

The Tribunal upheld the demand and confiscation against an appellant manufacturing centrifugal pumps under another entity's brand name. Although the ... SSI Exemption - Brand name - Manufacture in other person's name - bonafide mistake - Held that:- Appellants are not disputing the fact that ‘Prince’ is belonging to M/s. Kalsi Engineeers and was registered in their name. Further the fact that the appellants were also manufacturing the identical goods i.e. centrifugal pumps, which was being manufactured by M/s. Kalsi Engineeers, in the brand name of ‘Prince’ cannot be held to be reflecting upon their bona fide intention. - Appellant being in the same business is expected to know about the ownership of the brand name, which they are putting on the goods manufactured by them. As such, we are of the view that there is intention on the part of the appellants to use the brand name ‘Prince’ which belonged to M/s. Kalsi Engineeers. Decision relied upon by the assessee in the case of Bhalla Enterprises [2004 (9) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] or in the case of Vetcare Organics P. Ltd [2004 (9) TMI 164 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] distinguished - decided against assessee. Issues:1. Small scale exemption eligibility due to the use of another person's brand name.2. Reduction of penalty amount by Commissioner (Appeals).3. Intention of the appellant in using the brand name of another person.4. Availability of Notification No. 8/2001-C.E. for the appellant.5. Raising and confirmation of demand within the limitation period.6. Awareness of the appellant regarding the brand name ownership.7. Applicability of legal precedents cited by the appellant's counsel.Issue 1: Small Scale Exemption Eligibility:The appellant, engaged in manufacturing centrifugal pumps under the brand name 'Prince,' faced proceedings due to using a brand name registered under another entity. The Revenue contended that this disqualified the appellant from small scale exemption benefits. The Asstt. Commissioner confirmed a duty amount, confiscated goods, and imposed a penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand and confiscation but reduced the penalty. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal against the penalty reduction, citing lack of evidence of the appellant's knowledge or intention to use another's brand name.Issue 2: Reduction of Penalty Amount:The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty imposed on the appellant, leading the Revenue to appeal against the penalty reduction. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing the absence of evidence indicating the appellant's knowledge or intention to benefit from using another person's brand name.Issue 3: Intention of the Appellant:The appellant argued that despite the demand being within the limitation period, their lack of intention to gain undue advantage by using another's brand name should nullify the demand. Citing legal precedents, the appellant's counsel contended that without mala fide intention, demands within the limitation period should not stand.Issue 4: Availability of Notification No. 8/2001-C.E.:The Revenue argued that since the appellant used another's brand name, the availability of Notification No. 8/2001-C.E. for the appellant was in dispute. The Revenue maintained that the demand was raised within the limitation period specified under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.Issue 5: Raising and Confirmation of Demand:The Revenue asserted that the demand was raised within the limitation period, regardless of the appellant's intention, as permitted by Section 11A. The Revenue highlighted the proximity between the appellant's location and the brand name owner's location as evidence of the appellant's awareness of the brand name usage.Issue 6: Awareness of the Appellant:The Revenue contended that the appellant, being in the same business as the brand name owner and located in close proximity, was aware of the brand name ownership. The Tribunal found that the appellant's use of the brand name 'Prince,' registered under another entity, indicated an intention to benefit from the association.Issue 7: Applicability of Legal Precedents:The Tribunal determined that the legal precedents cited by the appellant's counsel were not applicable to the case. The Tribunal differentiated the circumstances of the present case from those in the cited judgments, emphasizing the appellant's knowledge and intention in using the registered brand name of another entity.In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's case and rejected the appeal based on the appellant's intentional use of another person's brand name.