2015 (6) TMI 469 - AT - Central Excise

Manufacturer loses SSI exemption dispute over bolt marks, deemed as brand names. Duty demand upheld.

The Tribunal ruled against the manufacturer in a dispute over SSI exemption eligibility for bolts bearing specific marks, deeming the marks as brand names ... Denial of SSI Exemption - Use of third party trademarks - clearance of goods goods marks - whether marks have to be treated as trade name or brand names belonging to other persons - Held that:- goods with marks - VF, RE, TVS, DECENT, H.F., J.P.F. and POOJA FORGE have to be treated as the goods bearing the brand name of other persons and the same would not be eligible for SSI exemption - decision in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. [2005 (4) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed - Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues:1. Eligibility for SSI exemption based on marks on goods.2. Interpretation of marks as brand names for exemption.3. Applicability of previous judgments on similar cases.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the eligibility of SSI exemption for bolts cleared by a manufacturer bearing specific marks from 1.4.1998 to 30.8.2001. The department contended that the marks on the goods were trade or brand names of other persons, making them ineligible for the exemption. The Joint Commissioner initially ruled in favor of the manufacturer, stating that the marks were for identification purposes only, not brand names.2. The Revenue appealed the Joint Commissioner's decision, leading to the Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal and upholding the original ruling. The Revenue further appealed this decision, arguing that the marks should be considered brand names based on a Supreme Court decision in a similar case involving stickers with brand names belonging to others.3. The Tribunal analyzed the situation, noting that the marks on the bolts were actually initials of the customers receiving the goods. Drawing parallels to the Supreme Court's decision in a previous case, where stickers with brand names were considered ineligible for exemption, the Tribunal concluded that the marks on the bolts should indeed be treated as brand names of other persons. Additionally, referencing another Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal confirmed a duty demand against the manufacturer, along with interest and penalties, due to the use of the marks as brand names, thus disqualifying them from the SSI exemption.This detailed analysis showcases the progression of the case, the arguments presented, and the Tribunal's final decision based on legal precedents and interpretations of the law.