Tribunal Upholds Decision on Brand Name Dispute

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the adjudicating Commissioner in a case concerning the wrongful availment of SSI exemption due to the use of a brand name. The dispute centered on whether the brand name "RADOJI" used by the respondent was deceptively similar to the registered brand name "RADO." The lack of specific allegations in the show cause notice regarding the similarity of brand names led to the dismissal of the appeal. The Tribunal found that the evidence supported the respondent's claim of using "RADOJI" and not infringing on the registered brand "RADO," affirming the Commissioner's decision.

---

---

Issues:
- Allegation of wrongful availment of SSI exemption based on the use of a brand name belonging to another person.
- Dispute regarding the brand name used by the respondent - "RADO" or "RADOJI".
- Interpretation of evidence including deposition of Proprietrix and Trademark Registry records.
- Lack of specific allegation in the show cause notice regarding the brand name being deceptively similar.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was filed against the order of the adjudicating Commissioner who had dropped the demand raised in the show cause notice alleging the wrongful availment of SSI exemption due to the use of a brand name belonging to another person. The respondents were engaged in manufacturing automobile parts and were found clearing products under the brand name "RADO," leading to the demand for duty and cess. The appellant-department argued that the respondents were using a brand name already registered by other manufacturers, thus not eligible for SSI exemption. They claimed that the brand name used by the respondent, "RADOJI," was deceptively similar to "RADO," citing evidence from the Trademark Registry and the deposition of the Proprietrix. However, the counsel for the respondent contended that they had been using the brand name "RADOJI" since 1992, had applied for its registration, and had not applied for "RADO." The Commissioner dropped the proceedings based on a detailed analysis of the facts, including the statement of the Proprietrix and the brand name used in invoices.

The main contention revolved around whether the brand name "RADOJI" used by the respondent was deceptively similar to the registered brand name "RADO." The Tribunal noted that this allegation was not raised in the show cause notice, which only mentioned the use of the brand name "RADO." The evidence presented, including the deposition of the Proprietrix and the Trademark Registry records, indicated that the respondent had applied for the registration of "RADOJI" and not "RADO." The Tribunal emphasized that the lack of specific allegations in the show cause notice prevented the acceptance of the new plea regarding the similarity of brand names at the appellate stage. Ultimately, based on a thorough evaluation of the evidence and legal principles, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order required no interference, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

---