2004 (8) TMI 507 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Interpretation of brand name for exemption under Notfn. No. 1/93

Analysis:
1. The appeal concerned the interpretation of the term "online" on goods for the purpose of claiming exemption under Notification No. 1/93. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that "online" does not qualify as a trade name or brand name, entitling the assessee to the benefit of the exemption.

2. The Revenue contended that "online" is a brand name owned by Online Instruments, Bangalore, and as the appellants used another person's brand name, they should not be entitled to the exemption under Notfn. No. 1/93.

3. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments from both sides and examined the nature of the term "online" in relation to the goods manufactured by the assessee. It noted that "online" was a technical term and not a recognized brand name associated with the goods.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no connection between the term "online" and the goods produced by the assessee. It compared "online" with "dot line" and highlighted that the term did not meet the criteria of being a brand name. Additionally, the Tribunal referred to a previous judgment in the case of Jindal Brothers India Ltd v. CCE, Delhi, which supported the assessee's position.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal as it found no merit in the argument that "online" constituted a brand name for the purpose of the exemption under Notfn. No. 1/93. The decision was based on the lack of association between the term "online" and the goods manufactured by the assessee.