2004 (3) TMI 453 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of small-scale exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E. based on the use of the brand name 'PARKMAN-T.'
- Ownership of the brand name 'Parkman' and its impact on entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E.

Analysis:
1. Denial of Small-Scale Exemption: The authorities had denied the appellants the benefit of small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. due to their use of the brand name 'PARKMAN-T,' which was claimed to belong to another entity. The appellant argued that their logo was distinct from the alleged owner's logo, emphasizing differences in shape and design. They also cited a Board circular allowing the use of common brand names by multiple manufacturers without denial of exemption. Additionally, the appellants had applied for and received registration of the brand name, further supporting their claim.

2. Ownership of Brand Name: The Revenue contended that the brand name 'Parkman' had been used by the alleged owner since 1978, while the appellants started using it in 1993. It was argued that the similarity in the main wording 'Parkman' indicated a breach of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The Tribunal examined the labels affixed on the goods and noted significant differences between the appellants' label and the alleged owner's label. The Tribunal emphasized that the brand name 'Parkman' was commonly used by various manufacturers and not exclusively owned by the alleged owner. Referring to a previous decision, it was established that the use of a brand name must be distinguished from exclusive ownership, and if a brand name is in the public domain, the benefit cannot be denied. The absence of evidence proving exclusive ownership of the brand name by the alleged owner favored the appellants.

3. Legal Precedents: Citing a Tribunal decision, it was highlighted that the use of a brand name not registered or owned by anyone could be utilized by any person without restriction, ensuring Small Scale Industry (SSI) benefits are not withheld. Relying on this precedent and the lack of evidence establishing exclusive ownership, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and granted the appeals, providing consequential benefits to the appellants.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the distinction between brand name use and ownership, emphasizing that the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. cannot be denied solely based on the use of a common brand name. The registration of the brand name in favor of the appellants, along with the absence of evidence proving exclusive ownership, supported the decision to allow the appeals and grant consequential benefits to the appellants.