Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Basant Industries, vs Chandigarh-I on 29 August, 2018
1
Appeal No. E/4007/2007
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
SCO 147-148, SECTOR-17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017
~~~~~
Appeal No. E/4007/2010
(Arising out of OIA- 213/CE/LDH/2010 dated 17.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner
(Appeals) of Central Excise-CHANDIGARH-II)
Basant Industries : Appellant (s)
Vs
CCE & ST-Chandigarh-I : Respondent (s)
Represented by:
For Appellant (s) : Shri Surjeet Bhadu, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri G. M. Sharma, AR CORAM :
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Hon'ble Member (Technical) Date of Hearing/Decision: 29.08.2018 ORDER No.a/62843/2018 Per : Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar The appellant filed appeal against the impugned order-in-appeal No. 213/CE/LDH/2010 dated 17.09.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Excise-CHANDIGARH-II.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant were engaged in the manufacture of Power Press falling under Chapter 84 of the schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant availed SSI exemption on the said goods. The appellant was a proprietary concern with Shri Gurdeep Singh as proprietor. The appellant were registered with Central Excise Department. The appellant were issued with the show cause notice dated 02.05.2008 wherein it was contended that the appellant were using the brand name "BASANT-BI" was being used by M/s BASANT Mechanical 2 Appeal No. E/4007/2007 Works and therefore, the appellant was using the brand name of somebody else and therefore the appellant was not entitled to avail the benefit of SSI exemption. Therefore, through the said show cause notice which was issued for the period from 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2003, the appellants were called upon to show as to why Central Excise Duty of Rs. 9,95,309/- should not be demanded from them under proviso to Sub- Section 1 of Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The issue was adjudicated through Order-in-Original dated 22.05.2009 on contest. Through the said order-in-original, the demand was confirmed and equal penalty was imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) decided the said appeal through impugned order-in-appeal wherein he has upheld the order-in-original dated 22.05.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the appeal is before this Tribunal.
3. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that M/s BASANT was a trade mark registered in 1970 by the Grandfather of Proprietor Shri Gurdeep Singh. The appellant firm was established in 1967 and a new brand name for M/s Basant Industries as BASANT-BI"" was used since then and that the brand BASANT and BASANT-BI are different than each other and that therefore, it cannot be held that the appellant was using somebody else's brand name. Therefore, the appellant was eligible for availment of benefit under SSI exemption. He has further submitted that the identical matter come up 3 Appeal No. E/4007/2007 before this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & ST- Ludhiana vs. M/s. Basant Presses (India) decided through vide Final Order No. 61066/2017 dated 09.06.2017 wherein the contention of Revenue was that 'BASANT' trade mark was owned by M/s Basant Mechanical Works whereas the same name was being used by M/s Basant Presses and hence they were not eligible to avail the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 and that this Tribunal had held that Basant Presses (India) were eligible for said notification. Further, the appellant has submitted that the Basant trade mark was registered by the Grandfather of the proprietor and therefore, M/s BASANT was a trade name which was the property of the family and the appellant was unit found by the members of the same family and therefore as held in the case of M/s Basant Presses (India) by this Tribunal, they should also be held to be eligible to avail benefit of exemption under said SSI exemption notification.
4. Heard the Ld. AR who has submitted that even if a part of the brand name is used out of the brand name registered by other persons, the SSI exemption is not eligible.
5. Having considered the rival contention and on perusal of record, we find that the issue related to trade mark or brand name 'Basant' is already decided by this Tribunal in the above stated case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax-Ludhiana vs. M/s Basant Presses (India) vide Final Order No. 61066/2017 dated 09.06.2017 wherein this Tribunal has 4 Appeal No. E/4007/2007 held that 'Basant' trade mark was being used by M/s Basant Mechanical Works, Ludhiana and the same even if used by M/s Basant Presses (India), they were eligible for SSI exemption. In the similar circumstances by following the same order, we hold that the appellant was eligible to avail benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01.03.2003 which is also for availing the benefit of SSI exemption. We therefore set- aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Court)
(Ashok Jindal) (Anil G. Shakkarwar)
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
G.Y.