1. Small Scale Industrial Unit claimed excise duty exemption under Notification No. 1/93 subject to brand name condition. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2015 Supreme(SC) 1762
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
Commissioner Of Central Excise-I, Pune - Appellant
Versus
M/s General Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5852 of 2007
Decided on : 16-10-2015
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv., Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv., Mr. Shankar Divate, Adv., Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Adv., Ms. Neelam Chand, Adv., Mr. Anurag, Adv., Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv., Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv., Mr. M. P. Devanath, Adv., Ms. L. Charanaya, Adv., Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv., Mr. Anandh K., Adv., Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv., Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv., Mr. Shankar Divate, Adv., Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Adv., Ms. Neelam Chand, Adv., Mr. Anurag, Adv., Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv., Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. V. Sridharan, Sr. Adv., Mr. M. P. Devanath, Adv., Ms. L. Charanaya, Adv., Mr. Hemant Bajaj, Adv., Mr. Anandh K., Adv., Mr. Aditya Bhattacharya, Adv.
A Small Scale Industrial Unit cannot be denied excise duty exemption if the owner of the alleged trademarks provides an affidavit confirming they have no objection to the unit's use of those trade names.
Headnote:(A) Central Excise - Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.02.1993 - Small Scale Industrial Unit (SSI Unit) - Exemption from excise duty subject to the condition that the SSI Unit is not using the brand name of another company which is not an SSI unit. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
A small scale industrial unit claimed benefit under a specific exemption notification that relieves SSI units from paying excise duty, provided they do not use the brand name of a non-SSI company. The benefit was denied on the grounds that the unit was using certain trademarks of another company. However, an affidavit was filed by the responsible officer of the other company stating that they were not using the said trademarks and had no objection to their use by the assessee.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence provided by the trademark owner's affidavit negated the grounds for denying the exemption and affirmed that the Tribunal's order was proper and legal.
Issues: Whether the excise duty exemption for an SSI unit is valid when the owner of the alleged trademarks expresses no objection to the unit's use of those trademarks.
Ratio Decidendi: Where evidence on record, specifically an affidavit from the concerned entity, establishes that there is no objection to the use of certain trademarks, the ground for denying excise duty exemption to an SSI unit on the basis of using another company's brand name is not sustainable. (Paras 2 and 3)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
tax law
-
indirect taxation
-
central excise
- exemption notifications
-
central excise
-
indirect taxation
Table of Contents
2. Revenue denied exemption claiming assessee used trademarks of non-SSI company; assessee disputed. (Para 2 )
3. Tribunal found factual error based on trademark owner's affidavit disclaiming use and consenting; no interference. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Exemption condition on brand name not violated if trademark owner disclaims use and has no objection. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 4 )
6. What constitutes using the brand name of another company under SSI excise exemption?
If the alleged brand name owner files an affidavit stating it does not use the trademarks and has no objection, the condition is not violated. (Para 2 )
ORDER :
1. It is not in dispute that the respondent-assessee is a Small Scale Industrial Unit (SSI Unit). It claimed the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.02.1993 and the successor notification as per which the SSI Units are not supposed to pay any excise duty. However, it is subject to the condition that such a SSI Unit is not using the brand name of other company which is not a SSI unit.
2. The benefit was sought to be denied to the assessee on the ground that it was using certain trade marks of M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. The Tribunal, however, found that this was not factually correct and the responsible officer of M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. itself had filed an affidavit stating that they were not using the said trade marks and had no objection if those trade names/ marks are used by the assessee.
3. In view of the aforesaid evidence coming on record, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal which is proper and legal.
4. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
