2002 (5) TMI 670 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. due to the use of a brand name belonging to another person.
2. Ownership of the brand name 'BENTEX' post dissolution of M/s. Chopra Electrical Sales Corporation.
3. Interpretation of Clause 4 of Notification 1/93-C.E. regarding entitlement to benefits.
4. Difference of opinion on whether the appeal should be dismissed or remanded for reconsideration based on previous Tribunal orders.

Issue 1: Denial of benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E.:
The appellants were denied the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. as they were using the brand name 'BENTEX' belonging to another person. The Commissioner of Central Excise imposed duty and penalty on the appellants, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: Ownership of brand name 'BENTEX':
The appellants claimed ownership of the brand name 'BENTEX' post the dissolution of M/s. Chopra Electrical Sales Corporation. They argued that the brand name was registered in the names of three partners and not the corporation. However, the composition of the appellants' firm did not include any of the three Chopra brothers who owned the brand name, leading to a dispute over ownership.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Clause 4 of Notification 1/93-C.E.:
The dispute centered around the interpretation of Clause 4 of Notification 1/93-C.E., which stated that the benefit of the notification is not available to an assessee using the brand name of another assessee who is not eligible for the benefit. The Tribunal had to determine the rightful owner of the brand name 'BENTEX' to decide the appellants' entitlement to the notification's benefits.

Issue 4: Difference of opinion on appeal disposition:
A difference of opinion arose among the Tribunal members regarding whether to dismiss the appeal or remand it for reconsideration based on previous Tribunal orders. Member (Judicial) supported dismissal, while Member (Technical) favored remand considering the Tribunal's Final Order dated 23-10-2001. Member (T) agreed with remand, emphasizing the need for the adjudicating authority to reconsider the matter in light of previous orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration in view of the Tribunal's Final Order Nos. 497-504/2001-B. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, with a majority decision supporting the remand for further examination of the ownership of the brand name 'BENTEX' and its implications on the appellants' eligibility for the notification's benefits.