2012 (9) TMI 28 - HC - Central Excise

Clearance of the Cement on payment of duty at the concessional rate - brand name of other person Held that - Question is excluded from the purview of this Court under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act and the same has to be decided by the Apex Court under Section 35L of the Act - Appeal is rejected

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption Notification Nos. 6/02 and 4/06 regarding the use of brand names.
2. Determination of ownership of the brand name "RAMCO" and its impact on the eligibility for exemption.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to adjudicate on issues related to excise duty rates and goods valuation.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Exemption Notification
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the Tribunal's decision granting the assessee exemption under Notification Nos. 6/02 and 4/06. The Tribunal found that the assessee used their trade name "KARTHIC" along with "RAMCO PRODUCT" on cement bags. The Revenue contended that using "RAMCO PRODUCT" would disqualify the assessee from the exemption. However, the assessee argued that "RAMCO" was their own brand name, supported by a registration certificate from 1987. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that they did not violate the notification conditions and were entitled to the exemption.

Issue 2: Ownership of Brand Name "RAMCO"
The substantial questions of law raised included whether the clearance of cement with another person's brand name under the notifications was correct and if the Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal based on the usage of another brand name was lawful. The Tribunal's decision was questioned regarding the extension of benefits under the notification to the assessee despite using a different brand name. The ownership of the brand name "RAMCO" was a crucial point of contention, with the Tribunal holding that it belonged to the assessee, not another individual or entity.

Issue 3: High Court's Jurisdiction
The High Court determined that the issues raised fell within the exception under Section 35G, stating that matters related to excise duty rates and goods valuation should be adjudicated by the Apex Court under Section 35L. As per precedent, the High Court lacked jurisdiction to decide on such matters. Consequently, the appeal was rejected as not maintainable, with the option for the Revenue to approach the Apex Court for adjudication on the substantial legal questions raised. The High Court Registry was directed to return the certified copies of the orders to facilitate the Revenue's appeal to the Apex Court.