1995 (11) TMI 462 - Commissioner - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Scope of "Brand name" concept in Notification 1/93 under Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of the "Brand name" concept in Notification 1/93 under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant, a manufacturer of medicines, was accused of affixing the brand name/trade name of another entity on their products, leading to the denial of benefits under Notification 1/93. The impugned order was a result of a Show Cause Notice issued by the Range Officer IV-B of Madras IV Division, alleging that the appellants affixed the brand name/trade name of M/s. Medopharm, Madras 6 on their goods. This led to a demand confirmation of Rs. 5,33,618.97 under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The grounds of appeal contended that the products bore the appellants' brand name/trademark and were marketed by M/s. Medopharm, Madras, emphasizing that the lower authority failed to appreciate this fact. The appellant argued that the specified goods belonged to them and were marketed by M/s. Medopharm using their monogram, thus not contravening para 4 of Notification 1/93. They further highlighted that the brand name/trademark of another person was not affixed to the excisable goods manufactured by them.

The appellate authority analyzed the issues raised, citing a Tribunal decision involving a similar case. The Tribunal's decision in the Thio Pharma case was discussed, where the Tribunal held that the brand name/trade name "Synthico" was owned by a marketing agency, thereby denying the benefit of exemption under the notification. However, in the present case, the appellate authority found that the appellants' products only mentioned the marketing firm's name and address, with their own brand name prominently displayed on the container/carton. The authority concluded that there was no application of the Tribunal's decision to the facts of the case. Additionally, a letter from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras IV Division, supported the appellants' case, further undermining the lower authority's findings. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the interpretation of the "Brand name" concept in Notification 1/93 under the Central Excise Tariff Act, emphasizing the importance of correctly affixing brand names/trademarks on products to avail of benefits under the notification. The case highlights the significance of distinguishing between the manufacturer's brand name and the marketing firm's details on product packaging to determine eligibility for exemption under relevant regulations.