TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds SSI exemption for Roopash Cosmetics in brand name dispute</h1> The Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, confirming M/s. Roopash Cosmetics' eligibility for SSI exemption based on the proper assignment of the brand name ... SSI exemption - use of Brand name - Revenue has contended that mere addition of letters ‘T', R', 'C' or ‘A' to the trade name 'ASOKA' is merely an internal arrangement amongst the registered partners etc. and that does not qualify them to avail SSI exemptions - Held that: - the respondent will be entitled to use the brand name 'ASOKA' with the suffix 'R' to the territory allotted to them, since such a brand name is used by the respondent only after proper assignment on dissolution of the parent firm - the respondent has not used the brand name of another person so as to incur the mischief of para 4 of the SSI notifications - the decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi I Versus M/s. BONNE Care Pvt. Ltd. (Vice-Versa) [2016 (8) TMI 33 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] followed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:Claim of SSI exemption for multiple firms, Interpretation of brand name usage for SSI exemption eligibility.Analysis:The appeal was filed by Revenue against an Order-in-Appeal regarding the claim of SSI exemption for various firms, including M/s. Roopash Cosmetics. The Revenue challenged the granting of SSI exemption specifically to M/s. Roopash Cosmetics. The case involved the usage of the brand name 'ASOKA' by different firms after the dissolution of the original partnership firm, with variations like 'ASOKA - A', 'ASOKA - T', 'ASOKA - C', and 'ASOKA - R'. The Revenue contended that the addition of letters to the brand name did not qualify the firms for SSI exemptions, as they all used a common monogram. The Revenue relied on a Supreme Court decision and argued that using a registered trade name with additional words does not entitle the assessee to claim SSI exemption.The Tribunal noted that the original partnership firm was dissolved, and the right to use the brand name 'ASOKA' was settled among the partners for different territories with suffixes like 'A', 'C', 'T', etc. M/s. Roopash Cosmetics used the brand name 'ASOKA-R' with the common monogram, duly recognized by the Registrar of Trademarks. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision and upheld the impugned order, stating that M/s. Roopash Cosmetics was entitled to use the brand name 'ASOKA-R' after proper assignment on the dissolution of the parent firm. The Tribunal also cited another case to support the decision. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, thereby dismissing Revenue's appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Order-in-Appeal, confirming the eligibility of M/s. Roopash Cosmetics for SSI exemption based on the proper assignment of the brand name 'ASOKA-R' after the dissolution of the original partnership firm. The decision was supported by legal precedents and interpretations of SSI exemption criteria related to brand name usage.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
