2002 (4) TMI 490 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 175/86 due to alleged evasion of duty by using brand name of a foreign company.
2. Interpretation of provisions of Collaboration Agreement and brand name/trade name under Notification 175/86.
3. Rejection of submissions by Commissioner, duty demand confirmation, and penalty imposition.
4. Dispute over affixation of company name and additional markings on products.
5. Ownership status of the brand name "Ultra Filter" and its impact on eligibility for exemption under Notification 175/86.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a manufacturer of filters, faced a show cause notice proposing denial of benefit under Notification 175/86 for allegedly evading duty by using the brand name of a German company. The Commissioner found connections between the appellant's products and the foreign company, leading to the denial of eligibility for the exemption.

2. The Commissioner relied on the Collaboration Agreement terms to conclude that affixing "Ultra Filter (I) Pvt. Ltd./Ultra Filter Made in India" indicated a connection with the German company, falling within the brand name/trade name definition of Notification 175/86. The Commissioner rejected the appellant's argument of using their own company's name and address, leading to the duty demand confirmation and penalty imposition.

3. Upon appeal, the Tribunal inspected the products and found that the appellant's use of their registered company name and address did not necessarily associate the products with the German company. Additionally, the Tribunal noted the presence of additional markings like "Ultra Filter Made in India," which were subject to a legal dispute over ownership status. The Tribunal remanded the matter to determine the ownership of the brand name "Ultra Filter" affixed to the products.

4. The Tribunal's decision to remand for fresh adjudication was based on the unresolved issue of brand name ownership, as highlighted in a civil suit. The outcome of the ownership dispute would significantly impact the appellant's claim for using their own mark/name and potentially affect their eligibility for the exemption under Notification 175/86.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for remand to conduct a new adjudication considering the ownership status of the brand name "Ultra Filter" affixed to the products. The resolution of the ownership dispute would be crucial in determining the appellant's eligibility for the exemption under Notification 175/86.