1999 (1) TMI 361 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. regarding exemption for specified goods affixed with brand-name or trade-name of another person.
2. Applicability of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 to goods bearing a specific brand-name.
3. Determination of whether the trademark was embossed on the goods or only on the container.
4. Consideration of exceptions where the trademark can be affixed on the container instead of the goods themselves.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute over the applicability of an exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. to goods bearing a specific brand-name. The Commissioner held that the goods cleared by the appellants were covered by para 7 of the notification, which stated that the exemption did not apply to specified goods affixed with the brand-name of another person. This led to the appellants filing an appeal against the order.

2. The facts of the case revealed that the appellant company was availing Modvat credit on raw materials and paying Central Excise duty under the mentioned notification. However, a search conducted by Central Excise Officers found L.D.P.E. Films bearing the brand-name "Agrifilm." The appellants argued that the brand-name was not embossed on the films and that they used the term "Agrifilm" to indicate the size of the film.

3. The appellants contended that defective films were sent for recycling in their factory due to product nature, which could develop defects leading to leakage. They cited a Tribunal decision to support their claim that waste materials were not excisable goods. After considering the submissions, the Commissioner upheld the initial decision regarding the exemption denial.

4. During the hearing, it was established that the trademark "Agrifilm" was not embossed on the goods themselves but on the container used for packing the films. The Tribunal noted that there are exceptions where trademarks can be affixed on containers instead of goods. However, in this case, since the trademark was not embossed on the goods but only on the container, the L.D.P.E. films were deemed not to bear the trademark on behalf of the brand owner. Consequently, the appellants were held entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 175/86, and the appeal was allowed with appropriate reliefs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal in the case.