Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Sivanesan and Co. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this appeal filed by revenue against order-in-appeal no. 299/98, dated 6-10-98 passed by the commissioner of central excise, chennai.the respondents were engaged in the manufacture and sale of "pressure cookers", an excisable commodity. they were also availing the benefit of ssi exemption under notification no. 1/93 at the relevant time. they used the brand name of "premier" along with the logo "ss" in respect of the products cleared by them. the revenue conducted investigations and disallowed the ssi exemption on the ground that the brand name and logo are not owned by the respondents but by another partnership firm viz.the commissioner (appeals) has given a finding that the brand name and logo are owned by both the companies. therefore, it is only an usage of a common brand name and logo. he has given a further finding that the clearances of both the unit would have to be clubbed together to decide the question of exemption under notification 1/93. it was seen that even when the clearances are clubbed, they would be still within the exemption limit. in these circumstances, the commissioner (appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondents. the main thrust of the revenue's appeal is that the respondents used the brand name, which was registered with m/s. s. sivanesan & co. with partners as registered proprietors. according to the revenue, the case relates to brand name concept and the respondents are not eligible for availing the exemption. the commissioner (appeals) has gone into the aspect of identity of interest of both the firms in the business of each other to club the value of clearances for the purposes of notification no. 1/93.it was pointed out by ld. advocate that when the brand name is jointly owned, ssi exemption is not deniable on the ground that the person is using the brand name of another person. it was also m/s. s. sivanesan & co. in respect of s. sivanesan & co., the partners are (1) shri s.sivanesan (2) smt. k. parvathi and (3) smt. s. ponnammal. smt. parvathi and ponnammal are mother and sister-in-law of sri sivanesan. the additional commissioner confirmed the demands for the period from april to june, 1994 invoking the extended period. the respondents approached the first appellate authority. the first appellate authority allowed the appeal of the respondents. the revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals).2. shri b.l. meena, sdr appeared for the appellant-revenue and sri t.s.balasubramaraam, advocate appealed for the respondents.3. we have gone through the records of the case carefully. there are actually two partnership firms in the name of m/s. sivanesan & co. in the case of the second partnership firm viz. m/s. s. sivanesan & co., there is additional partner, mother of shri sivanesan who is a partner in the respondent's firm along with his sister-in-law, smt. k.parvathi. both the partnership firms used the brand name of "premier" along with the logo "ss" in respect of the products cleared by them emphasized that when the brand name is jointly owned, each person is owner of the brand name. in this view, in the present case, we cannot say that the respondents were using the brand name of another person.moreover, the commissioner (appeals) has given a finding that even if the clearances of both the units are clubbed together, they will come within the exemption limit provided in the notification. in these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the commissioner (appeals). the revenue's appeal is rejected.

Judgment:
1. This appeal filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 299/98, dated 6-10-98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai.

The respondents were engaged in the manufacture and sale of "pressure cookers", an excisable commodity. They were also availing the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 at the relevant time. They used the brand name of "PREMIER" along with the logo "SS" in respect of the products cleared by them. The Revenue conducted investigations and disallowed the SSI exemption on the ground that the brand name and logo are not owned by the respondents but by another partnership firm viz.

The Commissioner (Appeals) has given a finding that the brand name and logo are owned by both the companies. Therefore, it is only an usage of a common brand name and logo. He has given a further finding that the clearances of both the unit would have to be clubbed together to decide the question of exemption under Notification 1/93. It was seen that even when the clearances are clubbed, they would be still within the exemption limit. In these circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal of the respondents. The main thrust of the Revenue's appeal is that the respondents used the brand name, which was registered with M/s. S. Sivanesan & Co. with partners as registered proprietors. According to the Revenue, the case relates to brand name concept and the respondents are not eligible for availing the exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone into the aspect of identity of interest of both the firms in the business of each other to club the value of clearances for the purposes of Notification No. 1/93.

It was pointed out by ld. Advocate that when the brand name is jointly owned, SSI exemption is not deniable on the ground that the person is using the brand name of another person. It was also M/s. S. Sivanesan & Co. in respect of S. Sivanesan & Co., the partners are (1) Shri S.Sivanesan (2) Smt. K. Parvathi and (3) Smt. S. Ponnammal. Smt. Parvathi and Ponnammal are mother and sister-in-law of Sri Sivanesan. The Additional Commissioner confirmed the demands for the period from April to June, 1994 invoking the extended period. The respondents approached the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority allowed the appeal of the respondents. The Revenue is aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. Shri B.L. Meena, SDR appeared for the appellant-revenue and Sri T.S.Balasubramaraam, Advocate appealed for the respondents.

3. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. There are actually two partnership firms in the name of M/s. Sivanesan & Co. in the case of the second partnership firm viz. M/s. S. Sivanesan & Co., there is additional partner, mother of Shri Sivanesan who is a partner in the respondent's firm along with his sister-in-law, Smt. K.Parvathi. Both the partnership firms used the brand name of "PREMIER" along with the logo "SS" in respect of the products cleared by them emphasized that when the brand name is jointly owned, each person is owner of the brand name. In this view, in the present case, we cannot say that the respondents were using the brand name of another person.

Moreover, the Commissioner (Appeals) has given a finding that even if the clearances of both the units are clubbed together, they will come within the exemption limit provided in the Notification. In these circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue's appeal is rejected.