1999 (6) TMI 436 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original demanding duties and imposing penalties. Consideration of affixation of name plate bearing 'NGEF' on control devices for SSI exemption.

Analysis:
The appellants contested the denial of SSI exemption based on affixation of name and rating plates on control devices sold to M/s. NGEF. The advocates argued that the information on the rating plates did not relate to any brand name or trademark, thus not affecting the exemption. They further contended that the name plate with 'NGEF' did not signify a brand name or trademark as the control panels were not traded openly. Citing legal precedents, they emphasized that the use of 'NGEF' did not disqualify for SSI exemption. The advocates highlighted previous orders by the same Collector allowing SSI exemption for similar cases involving 'NGEF' name plates.

The Revenue representative argued that affixing 'NGEF' on the control panels established a direct link to M/s. NGEF, thus violating the SSI notification. The representative differentiated the case from previous judgments, stating that control panels were commonly traded electrical items. The Revenue representative emphasized that 'NGEF' was the only identifier for M/s. NGEF, making it a brand name. The Revenue representative contended that the order correctly denied the SSI benefit based on these grounds.

The Tribunal analyzed the concept of brand names and house monograms, citing legal precedents. Referring to previous cases, the Tribunal clarified that a house monogram only identifies the manufacturer and the product's compliance with technical specifications, not serving as a brand name. The Tribunal distinguished between house marks and product marks, emphasizing that a separate mark identifies each product. Considering relevant case laws, the Tribunal concluded that the order-in-original was inconsistent with previous decisions by the same Collector. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration, directing a review of all submissions and evidence, including trade aspects of the goods.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed for remand, instructing the Commissioner to reevaluate the case in light of previous orders and legal precedents, ensuring a comprehensive review of all aspects, including trade considerations.