2008 (7) TMI 627 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. for refined edible oils in unit containers cleared by the respondents in April 2003.
- Determination of whether the clearances were made under a brandname.
- Interpretation of the definition of "brandname" under the relevant notification.
- Comparison with Apex Court judgments on what constitutes a brandname or trade name for SSI exemption notifications.
- Consideration of the registration of a combination of alphabets as a trade mark by the Trade Marks Registry.

Analysis:
1. The central issue in this case before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai was whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. was applicable to refined edible oils cleared in unit containers by the respondents in April 2003. The dispute revolved around whether the clearances were made under a brandname, as products bearing a brandname were not eligible for the exemption provided by the notification.

2. The lower authorities had initially granted the benefit of the exemption to the respondents after determining that the superscription "Manufactured & Packed By: S.V.S. & SONS" on the product label did not constitute a brandname. However, the Revenue challenged this decision, relying on judgments by the Apex Court regarding the definition of a brandname or trade name for similar exemption notifications. The Revenue argued that the combination of alphabets S, V & S enclosed in a rectangular box, registered as a trade mark by the respondents, should be considered the brandname.

3. Upon careful consideration, the Appellate Tribunal found that during the disputed period, the respondents had indeed used the combination of alphabets S, V & S enclosed in a rectangular box as their brandname/trade mark, registered with the Trade Marks Registry. However, the product label only displayed "S.V.S. & SONS," which simply represented the name of the respondents, S.V. Sivalinga Nadar & Sons, and not the registered brandname/trade mark. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision that the markings on the product label did not constitute a brandname, making the respondents eligible for the exemption.

4. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. for the refined edible oils cleared in unit containers in April 2003, as the product label did not bear a brandname as per the definition provided in the notification. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the branding used by the respondents and the legal interpretations of brandnames from relevant judgments.