2018 (3) TMI 1278 - AT - Central Excise

Ownership rights in brand names upheld through valid assignment deeds despite lack of registration

Commissioner of Customs, C.E. And S.T., Noida Versus M/s BNK Rubbers Private Ltd. And Others

The respondents successfully established ownership of brand names 'OMFA PREMIUM' and 'ENDURA HITECH' through valid assignment deeds, despite lack of ... SSI exemption - use of Brand Name - N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - It appeared to revenue that “OMFA PREMIUM” and “ENDURA HITECH” brands were not belonging to respondent - Held that: - the respondents were rightly holding the ownership of both the brands - it is also established that the said SCN was without any basis - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues: Ownership of brand names, validity of assignment deeds, eligibility for Small Scale Exemption, confiscation of goods, demand of Central Excise duty, appeal against Order-in-Appeal, grounds of appeal by revenue.Ownership of Brand Names: The case involved the ownership of brand names 'OMFA PREMIUM' and 'ENDURA HITECH' by the respondents. The revenue contended that the brands did not belong to the respondents as they were registered under different entities. However, the respondents had legal and valid assignment deeds for both brands, which were not registered with the Trade Mark Authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the respondents were rightfully holding the ownership of both brands based on the assignment deeds, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by the revenue.Validity of Assignment Deeds: The respondents had assignment deeds for the brand names 'OMFA PREMIUM' and 'ENDURA HITECH' from the original owners for a consideration. The revenue argued that the considerations were inadequate, and the deeds were not registered with the Trade Mark Authority. Despite this, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the validity of the assignment deeds, stating that the respondents legally owned the brands as per the deeds.Eligibility for Small Scale Exemption: The respondents were availing Small Scale Exemption under a specific notification. However, the revenue claimed that due to the ownership dispute of the brand names, the respondents were not eligible for the exemption. The Original Authority had confirmed the demand and ordered confiscation of goods. Still, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, stating that the respondents were eligible for the exemption based on the valid assignment deeds.Confiscation of Goods and Demand of Central Excise Duty: The revenue had seized goods bearing the brand names 'OMFA PREMIUM' and 'ENDURA HITECH' and issued a show cause notice proposing a demand of Central Excise duty. The Original Authority confirmed the demand, ordered confiscation, and imposed penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this decision, leading to the revenue's appeal before the Tribunal.Appeal Against Order-in-Appeal: The revenue filed an appeal challenging the Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) that favored the respondents. During the Tribunal hearing, the revenue failed to raise any grounds challenging the finding that the respondents were rightful owners of the brands. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue, and the Cross Objection was also disposed of accordingly.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of ownership of brand names, validity of assignment deeds, eligibility for Small Scale Exemption, confiscation of goods, demand of Central Excise duty, appeal against Order-in-Appeal, and the grounds of appeal by the revenue, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the authorities involved.