2004 (10) TMI 428 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Availability of benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification Nos. 9/99 dated 28-2-99 and 9/2000 dated 1-4-2000 due to the use of the brand name 'Mascot' of another person.

In the present case, the issue before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi revolved around the availability of the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification Nos. 9/99 dated 28-2-99 and 9/2000 dated 1-4-2000 to the appellants who were using the brand name 'Mascot' of M/s. Mascot India Tools & Forgings Ltd. The benefit under these notifications was denied to the appellants based on the usage of the 'Mascot' brand name. The appellants argued that the brand name 'Mascot' had been assigned to them by its owner, M/s. Mascot India Tools & Forgings Ltd., through a valid assignment deed. The Tribunal examined the assignment deed dated 2-9-98 and found that the brand name 'Mascot' was indeed assigned to the appellants by the owner company, with the number 343059 mentioned in both the assignment deed and the original certificate issued under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants were the valid assignees of the brand name 'Mascot' and thus entitled to use it, rendering the denial of benefit under the notifications unjustified.

The Tribunal noted that the assignment deed clearly established the transfer of the brand name 'Mascot' from M/s. Mascot India Tools & Forgings Ltd. to the appellants. Despite the Revenue's contention regarding the mention of only the number in the deed, the Tribunal found no ambiguity as the number 343059, under which the brand name 'Mascot' was issued to the owner company, was consistent in both the certificate and the assignment deed. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's argument and accepted the appellants' claim as valid assignees of the brand name 'Mascot'. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders in both appeals and allowed the appeals of the appellants, granting them consequential relief as per the law. The decision emphasized the importance of the valid assignment of the brand name in determining the appellants' entitlement to the benefit of the concessional rate of duty under the relevant notifications.