2006 (3) TMI 416 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the inscribed wordings constitute a brand name or not.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute over whether certain inscribed wordings on a product label constitute a brand name. The Commissioner (Appeals) differentiated between 'House Mark' and 'Product Mark' or 'Brand Name' based on a Supreme Court ruling. The Commissioner found that the words 'marketed by Mother Dairy' did not qualify as a brand name, as the product was not specifically identified with Mother Dairy in the market. The Commissioner concluded that the inscribed words did not amount to a brand name or product name, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.

The Revenue contended that 'Mother Dairy' is a brand name and a registered trademark, giving an unfair advantage to the small-scale manufacturer claiming exemption. The argument was based on the connection established in the course of trade between the product and the name or mark 'Mother Dairy', making the small-scale manufacturer liable for Central Excise Duty.

Despite notices sent to the respondent company, no representation was made. The Revenue argued that no mineral water is sold without a brand name, asserting that 'Mother Dairy' on the label must indicate a brand name. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the mention of 'Mother Dairy' on the label referred to the marketing agent and did not constitute a brand name. The Commissioner also noted that consumers do not specifically ask for 'Mother Dairy' when purchasing mineral water, unlike other well-known brands. Even if 'Mother Dairy' was considered a brand name, it encompassed a range of products, not a single specific product. Consequently, the Commissioner upheld the original decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.