Trademark Registered in Family Members’ Name, not a Ground to Deny SSI Exemption: CESTAT [Read Order]

The Ahmedabad bench Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the registration of Trademark in the name of a family member not bar to deny SSI exemption since all the family members are entitle to use the brand for the purpose of availing SSI exemption.

The appellant, Abhay Industries contended before the CESTAT that they are eligible for SSI Exemption available under Notification No.8/2003-C.E. dated 01.03.2003. The department was of the view that since the appellant has used brand “Bintex” belonging to some other person, benefit of exemption under the said notification is not available.

Shri Paresh Sheth, the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the ‟Bintex” brand is registered in the name of family members of the appellant and appellant is also one of the owner of the “Bintex” brand as per the Trade Mark Registration therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant have used brand name of another person accordingly, the appellant is eligible for SSI exemption under notification no.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. The appellant further contended that though the brand belongs to family member, all the family members are entitle to use the brand for the purpose of availing SSI exemption.

Granting relief to the appellant, Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) held that the appellant firm using the brand name of “Bintex” for which the appellant firm partner Shri Rajesh Harshdrai Punatar is one of the owner of the brand name “Bintex”, the appellant firm is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003.

“We find that this Tribunal in various judgments cited by the appellant held that if brand is owned by any of the member or jointly by the family, any member of the family if use the said brand, it cannot be said that assessee is using the brand name of other person. The present case is on much better footing for the reason that the appellant‟s partner Shri Rajesh Harshdrai Punatar himself is one of the owner of the brand “Bintex” as per the Trade Mark Registration, therefore, there is no doubt that the brand name cannot be said to be belonging to any other person. Consequently, the appellant is eligible for exemption notification. Since the demand against the main appellant is not sustainable in view of the above discussion and finding, the penalty on the partner also will not sustain,” the CESTAT held.

To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.