2011 (4) TMI 4 - SC - Central Excise

Availment of exemption notification - the assignment of the trade mark in question granted in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties was on 6.10.1998, which is subsequent to the date of registration of the case by the Department, which was done on 19.9.1998 - The case is remitted back to the Tribunal for de novo consideration of the issue is whether or not the Assignment Deed which was entered into between the respondent and the owner of the trade mark on 6.10.1998, which is subsequent to the date of registration of the case by the Department, which was done on 19.9.1998 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months - Appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against CEGAT judgment allowing benefit under Exemption Notification based on Assignment Deed - Dispute over the timing of Assignment Deed execution - Interpretation of Trade Marks Act provisions in relation to excise law.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard appeals challenging the CEGAT judgment granting the respondent the benefit of an Exemption Notification due to an Assignment Deed. The appellant argued that the Assignment Deed was not executed in favor of the respondent when the case was registered, thus the benefit should not apply. The respondent, however, claimed entitlement to the benefit based on the assignment of the brand name as per a previous Supreme Court decision. The appellant cited a different Supreme Court decision where it was held that the retrospective effect of a registration certificate under the Trade Marks Act does not automatically confer exemption benefits under the Excise Law if the trade mark was misused.

The Court explained the process of obtaining a trademark registration, emphasizing the time-consuming nature of the procedure involving various steps like advertising and objection hearings. The registration, once granted, is deemed to relate back to the date of application. However, the Court clarified that this principle does not extend to excise law, as previously established. In the present case, the Assignment Deed was executed after the case registration, raising the question of whether it could be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal did not address this issue, leading the Court to remit the matter back for a decision.

The Court deemed it inappropriate to decide the factual issue themselves and instructed the Tribunal to determine whether the Assignment Deed could be applied retroactively. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a reasoned decision within six months. The appeal was allowed only on this specific issue, with the Court emphasizing that its order was limited to this aspect. The incidental applications were also disposed of accordingly.