UNIMODE CALZATURA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal filed by M/s. Unimode Calzatura Ltd., the issue, involved is whether they were affixing the brand name of another person on the goods manufactured by them so as to make them ineligible for the benefit of small -scale exemption.

(2.) Shri V.K. Gupta, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture leather shoes bearing brand name "Caribou of London" which is their own brand name; that they had applied to Trade Mark Authority for registering brand name in their own name; that the brand name has also been published in the Trade Mark journal dated 8 -1 -2003 and it has been intimated by the Trade Mark Registry under letter dated 20 -5 -2003 that no notice of possession has been filed against application and required certificate of Trade Mark would be issued to them in due course of time. The learned Advocate, further, submitted that not even an iota of evidence has been produced by the Department to show that the brand name "Caribou of London" is owned by some other person; that for attracting mischief of Para 4 of Small Scale Exemption Notification it is to be proved by the Department that the brand name which is affixed by SSI unit on the goods manufactured by it belongs to other person; that it is only mentioned in the impugned Order that the use of term 'London' in the brand name leads to conclusion that the goods have connection with foreign based person. He also submitted that in their Classification declaration they have clearly declared their brand name "Caribou of London" in respect of their product leather shoes, that they had also declared that they are the owners of the brand name; that therefore, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for demanding duty under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act.

(3.) Countering the arguments Shri Kumar Santosh, learned SDR, reiterated the findings as contained in the impugned Order and submitted that the Trade Mark Authorities had directed them that they should delete the words "of London" from the brand name which indicates that the Trade Mark Authority has rejected the claim of the Appellants that the brand name belongs to them; that further, the appellants did not agitate against the said direction of the Trade Mark Authority as they had agreed to disclaim the words "of London", that this goes to show that the brand name does not belong to them. He, therefore, mentioned that the benefit of SSI notification is not available to the Appellants.