Appellant loses SSI exemption appeal after failing to prove ownership of brand names "STOP" and "TODAY"

CESTAT Hyderabad dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding SSI exemption for goods cleared under brand names of others. The appellant failed to provide evidence of owning brand names "STOP" and "TODAY," while sufficient evidence established these belonged to other entities. The tribunal distinguished the cited SC precedent, noting it involved simultaneous use of same trademark by different parties in their own rights, unlike this case where appellant couldn't prove brand ownership. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly found the brand names belonged to other persons, not the appellant, and no evidence showed market perception of appellant as brand owner. The appeal was dismissed as the lower order was based on correct appreciation of facts and legal provisions.

---

---

Issues involved:
The main issue in this case is whether the Appellant was clearing goods under the brand name of another person or not.

Details of the judgment:

1. The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing mosquito coils, was found to be supplying to two parties under the brand names "STOP" and "TODAY." The department issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) alleging that the Appellant was not meeting the conditions of an exemption notification, as the brand names belonged to other persons. The Original Authority confirmed the demand and penalties, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) except for one penalty. The Appellant appealed against this decision.

2. The Appellant's representative argued that for denial of exemption, the brand name must belong to someone else and be used in trade to indicate a connection. The representative highlighted that the Appellant did not prove ownership of the brand names "STOP" and "TODAY." The Revenue relied on a case law to support their contention that where there is an owner of a registered trademark, the benefit is not available to the Appellant.

3. After considering the arguments, the Tribunal examined the evidence. It was established that the brand names were linked to the other parties, SRCPL and Farmax, who had applied for trademarks and used the names on packaging. The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to provide evidence that they owned the brand names. The Tribunal referred to the definition of brand name/trade name in the notification.

4. The Tribunal concluded that there was sufficient evidence to show that the brand names belonged to SRCPL and Farmax, not the Appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) decision was upheld, as it correctly analyzed the facts and legal provisions. The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal filed by the Appellant.

5. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 04.12.2023.

This summary provides a detailed overview of the issues involved in the legal judgment and the Tribunal's decision on each issue.

---