1. By these appeals the assessee has challenged the correctness of the Order-in-Appeal No. 11/2005 CE. & 112/2005 CE. dated 27.10.2005. The appellants were claiming benefit of SSI Notification Nos. 08/2002 CE dated 1.3.2002 and 08/2003 dated 1.3.2003. The benefit of SSI exemption has been denied on the ground that although the appellants have transferred the trade mark in their favour by way of sale under a Deed of Agreement, the same has not been approved by Bureau of Indian Standards who are the authority for brand/mark certification. The learned Counsel fifes compilation of case laws and submits that the issue is covered in their favour by ratio of the following rulings:Rakshak Farm Aids P. Ld. v. CCE Brand name belonging to foreign person assigned to appellant for use in India, held, small scale exemption admissible.
Held that where a brand name has been assigned by its owner to the assessee, the assessee becomes the owner of the brand name, and the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of SSI exemption and the use of brand name is legal.CCE v. Sampat P. Damodaran Held, that though bran name is not owned by the assessee but the same was allowed to be used by entering into deed of assignment by owner of brand name, SSI exemption allowed under Notification No. 175/86-CEB Pharmaceuticals v. CCE Held that once a logo is assigned, the assignee is entitled to SSI exemption even if third party or assignor is also using this logo.CCE v. Primella Sanitary Products Held that so long as assignment stands, SSI unit is entitled to benefit of the notification.
Held, that if trade name is transferred to the SSI unit, the trade name belongs to the SSI and hence it is eligible for SSI exemption.
Held that assignee of trademark is eligible for SSI concession, even if such assignment is not registered under Section 45 of the Trade Marks Act.
Allegation that appellants used brand name 'Sumer" belonging to another person. Such another person having executed assignment/relinquishment deed in appellant's favour in 1998 making that effective from 1991, appellants became entitled to use such brand name w.e.f. 1991. Held allegation not sustainable and benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE not deniable.
The learned Counsel points out that the issue is covered by the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE v. Primella Sanitary Products (supra) wherein it has been held that once the Deed Agreement has been executed, transferring the ownership of trade mark in the assessee's favour for a valuable consideration, then the benefit of exemption has to be extended.
3. Heard the learned Jt. CDR who defends the impugned order. He submitted that the ratio of the citations cannot be deferred.
4. On a careful consideration of the matter, we notice that there is no dispute about the Deed of the Assignment having been executed in the assessee's favour and transferring the ownership of the to the assessee. The denial of the benefit on the ground that the Deed Assignment has not been approved by the Bureau of Indian Standards is not a ground to deny the benefit. The Apex Court in the case of CCE v.Primella Sanitary Products (supra) has clearly held that once the Deed of Assignment has been executed transferring the ownership of trade mark in the assessee's favour for valuable consideration, then the benefit of exemption cannot be denied. Respectfully following the ratio of the above noted judgments, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any.