TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 1072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he adjudicating authority who was directed to consider the certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Revenue Authority), Mangalore which was submitted by the appellant in support of their argument that their unit was situated in a rural area and hence were allowed to claim SSI benefit even when the goods are cleared with the brand name of another person. The case was adjudicated in the de novo proceedings by the Additional Commissioner who confirmed the demand of duty. When the order was challenged before the Commissioner (A), the original order was upheld. Hence, the present appeal. 2. With the above background, heard shri Raghavendra B. Hanjer, advocate as well as Shri N. Jagadish, AR for the Revenue. 3. The learned advocate summarised the arguments of the appellant as follows: (i) The department has proceeded to deny the SSI notification by taking the view that the brand name Kanachur under which the appellant has cleared the goods does not belong to them. He submitted that the word Kanachur is the name of the village and hence, no one can claim exclusive right over the name. This also cannot be considered as brand name for denying SSI exemption. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another person, except in the following cases: (a) Where the specified goods, being in the nature of components or parts of any machinery or equipment or appliances, are cleared for use as original equipment in the manufacture of the said machinery or equipment or appliances by following the procedure laid down in Chapter X of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Manufacturers, whose aggregate value of clearances of the specified goods for use as original equipment does not exceed rupees one hundred lakhs in the financial year 2000-2001 as calculated in the manner specified in paragraph 1 may submit a declaration regarding such use instead of following the procedure laid down in Chapter X of the said rules; (b) Where the specified goods bear a brand name or trade name of (i) the Khadi and Village Industries Commissioner; or (ii) a State Khadi and Village Industry Board; or (iii) the National Small Industries Corporation; or (iv) a State Small Industries Development Corporation; or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t time. With reference to the official Memorandum dated 14.7.1994 issued by the Government of Karnataka only indicates that the area of Mangalore Municipal Corporation extends upto the southern boundary comprising several villages including Permannur. From this Official Memorandum, it cannot be conclusively stated that Permannur village was part of Mangalore Municipality. However the lower authorities have concluded that the village stands included. 5.3 The appellant has also raised the alternate plea that they will be entitled to the SSI benefit even when using the brand name of Kanachur . Their submission is that Kanachur is the name of the village and cannot be appropriated as a brand name and they have submitted that the proprietor of the appellant was earlier the partner in M/s. Kanachur Boards who were using a similar brand name. They have pleaded that the Revenue authorities have not brought anything on record to establish that the appellant is not authorised to use the said brand name. They also relied upon the following case laws: i. CCE, Bangalore vs. Featherlite Seating Systems Pvt. Ltd.: 2009 (248) ELT 505 (Tri.-Bang.); and ii. CCE vs. Minimax Indus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applied to goods manufactured by M/s. Minimax Industries. The allegation was that this brand name belonged to another unit, which was the sole proprietorship concern of Mr. Mohd. Yamin. The Hon'ble High Court discussed the issue as follows:- "14. As noted above, this partnership firm and MEI are being run by the family members. Two brothers are partners in the said partnership firm while the MEI is the sole proprietorship concern of third brother. Both of them have been using the mark Minimax for the last number of years, though, the use by MEI may be prior in point of time. However, even that is the history. Initially, all the three brothers were doing the business together, however, later on these two brothers of partnership firm started separate business in the same line using same name i.e. Minimax . In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the partnership firm started using the name Minimax which belonged to MEI. In the aforesaid circumstances, it can be said that at the most, the name Minimax belongs to both the entities namely, the partnership firm as well as MEI. 15. Admittedly, MEI has not got the brand name/logo Minimax registered either under the ....