2008 (11) TMI 544 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over brand name 'Blue Heaven' ownership.
2. Application of deemed equivalence principle in Excise law.

Issue 1: Dispute over brand name 'Blue Heaven' ownership:
The appellant argued that the demand arose solely due to the dispute over the brand name 'Blue Heaven,' which they claimed to own. They presented evidence from the trade mark registration authority showing that the brand name was registered under the name of the sole proprietor, who later changed the constitution of the firm. The appellant asserted that since they were declared as the sole owner of the brand name, any direction for pre-deposit would harm them. The appellant requested the waiver of the pre-deposit requirement.

Issue 2: Application of deemed equivalence principle in Excise law:
The Revenue, represented by the LD. DR, contended that the department was unaware of the changes made by the appellant regarding the brand name. They relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and argued that the retrospective date principle based on deemed equivalence to public user of a trade mark cannot be extended to Excise law. Therefore, the Revenue insisted that the appellant should make the pre-deposit as required.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal noted the controversy arising from the change in the partnership firm's constitution that owned the trade mark. The Tribunal observed that the registered owner of the trade mark, as per the documents provided, was Shri Gurnam Singh. Considering this, the Tribunal directed that there should be no realization of the demand raised by the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the need for an inquiry into the matter and the documents submitted by the appellant to resolve the dispute effectively.

This judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, provides a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the ownership of the brand name 'Blue Heaven' and the application of the deemed equivalence principle in Excise law. The decision showcases the importance of thorough examination of evidence and legal principles in resolving disputes related to intellectual property rights and taxation laws.