By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, DEC 23, 2015: THESE are Revenue appeals filed in the year 2005.

The issue involved is regarding the eligibility to avail benefit of Small Scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2002 dated 1.3.2002 for the alleged usage of the brand name of another person.

The respondents were manufacturers of pharmaceutical machinery. The lower authorities were of the view that the respondents were using the brand name "SAMS", while it is the case of the respondent that they were not using the said name and in fact the label on the machine is the manufacturer's own name and has no relation to the words "SAMS".

The AR submitted that "SAMS" is a brand name, which is of another person, and even if it is unregistered, the respondent could not have used the same and availed the benefit of exemption notification.

The Bench observed -

"5. …we find that there is no dispute as to the fact that the respondents had produced metal label which is affixed on each and every machine and it is recorded by the first appellate authority that the name plate contains details, such as name of the manufacturer in full, name of the product, model, sr. no. address, telephone no., fax no. ande.mail no. The first appellate authority has recorded the findings to the fact that there were no words or letters which would indicate that "SAMS" is a brand name affixed on such machines. The said particular name plates were produced before us and on perusal of the same, we find that the said label does not indicate that the machines are cleared with a brand name ‘SAMS'. In fact the said label indicated exactly the manufacturer's name and details which is Sams Techno Mech and Sams Tool machine, as the case may be. We find that the first appellate authority was correct in holding that if department wanted to deny the exemption notification on the ground that the brand name or their name is of another person, they must prove the case and the respondent cannot be asked to prove that trade name/brand name does not belong to any other person. We find that said metal label which was produced before us, creates an impression that the said machine is manufactured by SAMS Machine Tools or SAMS Techno Mech as the case may be. On such factual finding, we do find that the first appellate authority was correct and the Revenue has not made out any case."

Placing reliance on the apex Court decisions in StangenImmuno Diagnostics - 2015-TIOL-133-SC-CX and Pethe Brake Motors (P) Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-114-SC-CX, the CESTAT held that the impugned orders were correct and did not require any intereference.

The appeals filed by the CCE, Mumbai-IVwere rejected.

(See 2015-TIOL-2765-CESTAT-MUM)