2015 (10) TMI 2149 - SC - Central Excise

Supreme Court affirms CESTAT ruling for small scale industry on SSI Exemption Notification

Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore Versus M/s. Otto Bilz (India) Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the CESTAT, ruling in favor of the small scale industry assessee. The Court determined that the assessee ... Benefit of SSI Exemption - Use of Brand name of others - Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.02.1993 - Held that:- Respondent is using brand name 'BILZ' of a foreign company which makes the respondent ineligible to seek exemption under the aforesaid Notification. However, it has come on record that the foreign company, viz., M/s. Otto Bilz Wekzugfabrik GMPH & Co., a German company, has assigned the trade mark 'BILZ' in favour of the assessee under Agreement dated 18.06.1996 with right to use the said trade mark in India exclusively. Because of the aforesaid assignment, the assessee is using the trade mark 'BILZ' in its own right as its own trade mark and therefore, it cannot be said that it is using the trade mark of 'another person'. We, thus, are in agreement with the view taken by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal that the assessee would be entitled to the aforesaid Exemption Notification. - show cause notice dated 31.03.1999 which pertained to the period July, 1997, to March, 1998, is held to be time barred by CESTAT and further holding that the Revenue could not avail the benefit of proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Finding of the CESTAT on this issue is also without any blemish. - Decided against Revenue. Issues:1. Interpretation of SSI Exemption Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.02.1993 regarding the eligibility of a small scale industry for exemption.2. Determination of whether the use of a foreign company's brand name disqualifies an assessee from seeking exemption under the Notification.3. Consideration of the time-barred show cause notice and the applicability of the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.Analysis:1. The Supreme Court examined the dispute arising from the interpretation of paragraph 4 of the SSI Exemption Notification. The Revenue contended that the respondent, a small scale industry, was ineligible for exemption due to the use of a brand name 'BILZ' belonging to a foreign company. However, it was revealed that the foreign company had assigned the trade mark 'BILZ' to the assessee exclusively. Consequently, the Court agreed with the view of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) that the assessee qualified for the exemption under the Notification as it was using the trade mark in its own right, not as that of another person.2. Regarding the time-barred show cause notice dated 31.03.1999, covering the period from July 1997 to March 1998, the CESTAT had ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that it was beyond the statutory limitation and the Revenue could not benefit from the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The Supreme Court concurred with the CESTAT's decision on this matter, finding no fault in its reasoning. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on the grounds of the eligibility for exemption and the time-barred nature of the show cause notice.3. In a related appeal, Civil Appeal D 4219/2009, which shared the same issue as discussed in Civil Appeal Nos. 2967 of 2006, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was dismissed in line with the earlier order. This consolidated approach ensured consistency in the application of the legal principles across similar cases, maintaining coherence and fairness in the judicial decisions.