2002 (12) TMI 472 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Revenue appeal against dropping proceedings due to brand name usage on different products.

Analysis:
The Revenue appealed against the dropping of proceedings by the Commissioner due to the usage of brand names on different products. The respondents were manufacturers of Tube light patties under the brand name "Josalin," while M/s. Queen Electrical Industries owned the brand names "Queen" and "Supreme" for Tube light patties. The Revenue contended that during a specific period, the respondents removed tube light patties using the brand names "Queen" and "Supreme," which belonged to M/s. Queen Electrical Industries. The Commissioner upheld the assessee's contention that they were not using their brand name, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

The Revenue argued that since M/s. Queen Electrical Industries had removed Choke with the brand names "Queen" and "Supreme," the assessee should have been denied the benefit of exemption for using the same brand names for Tube light patties. However, the respondent's counsel pointed out that the products used by both parties were different and independent. Referring to a Larger Bench judgment in a similar case, the counsel emphasized that the brand name should be on the same product to deny the benefit. The counsel also highlighted that M/s. Queen Electrical Industries had filed a successful appeal on a time-bar aspect before the same Bench.

After considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the brand names "Queen" and "Supreme" were used by the respondents on Light Tube patties, while M/s. Queen Electrical Industries used the same brand names on "Chokes," which were different products. Citing the Larger Bench judgment, the Tribunal reiterated that to deny the benefit of exemption, the brand name should be on the same product. Additionally, the Tribunal mentioned that M/s. Queen Electrical Industries had previously succeeded in setting aside the impugned order. Concluding that the Revenue had not presented sufficient grounds on time-bar or merits, the Tribunal found no error in the impugned order and rejected the appeal accordingly.