2007 (8) TMI 208 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant wins SSI benefit appeal over trade name dispute, legal evidence proves acquisition legitimacy.

The appellant successfully challenged the denial of the SSI Notification benefit based on the alleged unauthorized use of the trade name 'ESL's Titanic.' ... Appellant acquired trade name/brand name in their own right by deed of assignment – No evidence shown by Revenue to prove fabrication of documents – Original owner who assigned the brand name was not examined – Assignment deed should be taken as a bona fide document so SSI exemption is available Issues:1. Denial of benefit of SSI Notification due to alleged unauthorized use of trade name 'ESL's Titanic.'2. Validity of the acquisition of the trade name by the appellant.3. Reliance on legal precedents supporting the grant of benefit on assignment of trade names.4. Comparison with previous judgments denying similar benefits based on the timing and reliance on assignment deeds.Analysis:1. The appeal stemmed from the denial of the SSI Notification benefit based on the alleged unauthorized use of the trade name 'ESL's Titanic' by the appellant, which was claimed to be owned by another individual. The appellant contended that they had acquired the brand name legitimately from the previous owner, M/s. ESL Industries Ltd., through a Deed of Assignment dated 23.12.2000. Despite the authorities' rejection of this evidence, citing fabrication, no concrete proof was presented by the Revenue to substantiate the claim of anti-dated documents. The appellant argued that as per the 'Trade and Merchandise Act', once an Assignment Deed is executed, the trade name is acquired legitimately, as supported by legal precedents.2. The validity of the acquisition of the trade name 'ESL's Titanic' by the appellant was crucial in determining their eligibility for the SSI Notification benefit. The appellant produced minutes of a Board meeting from 1999, where a resolution was passed to acquire the brand name, along with the Assignment Deed from 2000. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had relied on these documents in their response to the show cause notice, unlike in previous cases where similar deeds were not presented during inspections. The Tribunal emphasized that without concrete evidence proving fabrication, the appellant's acquisition of the trade name was deemed legitimate, in line with legal principles.3. Legal precedents played a significant role in the decision, with the appellant citing rulings from the Apex Court and Tribunal cases supporting the grant of benefits on the assignment of trade names. References were made to judgments such as CCE, Ahmedabad vs. Vikshara Trading & Invest. P. Ltd. and CCE, Goa Vs. Primella Sanitary Products, which upheld the benefit of SSI Notification based on valid trade name assignments. These precedents reinforced the appellant's argument that the acquisition of the trade name through a legitimate Assignment Deed entitled them to the benefit under the Notification.4. A comparison was drawn with previous judgments, such as AVA Engineering Co. and M/s. Varuna Pipes (P) Ltd., where benefits were denied due to doubts regarding the existence and timing of assignment deeds. In contrast, the Tribunal found the present case to be distinguishable, as the appellant had promptly presented the Assignment Deed and Board meeting minutes as evidence. The lack of concrete evidence from the Revenue to discredit the legitimacy of the trade name acquisition further supported the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any.