1998 (11) TMI 396 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of Notification 1/93 due to the use of a brand name.
2. Consideration of contentions by the Commissioner in the order.
3. Connection between products manufactured by the appellants and those traded by another party.
4. Interpretation of Section 8 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958.
5. Imposition of penalty on the partners of the appellants.

Analysis:

1. The issue in this case revolves around the denial of the benefit of Notification 1/93 to the appellants due to their use of the brand name "Ashok India," which was claimed to belong to another entity. The appellants argued that the products they manufactured were different from those traded by the other party owning the brand name. They had registered their brand names with the Trade Mark Registry of the Government of India before the issuance of the notice.

2. The Commissioner's order failed to consider the contentions raised by the appellants in response to the denial of benefits under Notification 1/93. Despite a remand order directing the Commissioner to address these contentions, they were not adequately addressed. As a result, the Tribunal decided to proceed with the disposal of the matter on its merits.

3. The departmental representative contended that there was a connection between the products manufactured by the appellants and those traded by the other party. It was argued that customers would be aware of the relation between the goods and the brand name owner, suggesting a basis for denying the benefit of the notification.

4. The Tribunal analyzed Section 8 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, which allows the same trademark to be used by different persons for different goods within the same class. It was established that the same trademark could be registered by different persons for goods that may be used complementarily. In this case, the Tribunal found that the brand names used by the appellants were not of another person, and as such, the benefit of the notification could not be denied.

5. Regarding the imposition of penalties on the partners of the appellants, the Tribunal ruled that penalty was not imposable on them in the specific appeal numbers mentioned. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned order denying the benefit of Notification 1/93 was set aside.