9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 156 - SC - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - Use of third party brand name - goods are different - Benefit of Notification No. 175/86 dated 01.03.1986 and 1/93 dated 01.03.1993 - Held that - Court fails to understand as to how the CESTAT could still hold that the brand name VETCARE and the logo which were owned by M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd., Bangalore registered in their name, belongs to the respondent. - even if the goods are different, so long as brand name or trade name of some other Company is used, the benefit of Notification would not be available. That permission shall not make the respondent owner of the brand name. It is thus, clear that the brand name belongs to M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd., Bangalore, which brand name is allowed to be used by the respondent and in these circumstances, following Explanation 8 to the Notification No. 175/86 dated 1.3.1986 would clearly become applicable. - principle of law is no more res integra and has been decided by this Court authoritatively in couple of judgments. - order of the CESTAT is erroneous and warrants to be set aside - Decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I Vs. Mahaan Dairies 2004 (2) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Decided in favour of Revenue.
Issues:
1. Use of brand name 'VETCARE' by the respondent. 2. Claim of Small Scale Industrial Unit (SSI) exemption. 3. Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86 and 1/93 regarding brand name usage. 4. Contradictory findings between the Commissioner and the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). 5. Application of Explanation VIII defining brand name. 6. Precedents regarding the use of brand names in relation to specified goods for trade connections. Analysis: The case revolves around the respondent using the brand name 'VETCARE,' registered to M/s Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd., Bangalore, despite claiming to be a Small Scale Industrial Unit (SSI) manufacturing organic chemicals and disinfectants. The Notification No. 175/86 and 1/93 provide an exemption from excise duty to SSI units, subject to not using a brand name belonging to another company. The Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, found the respondent in violation, leading to a series of appeals and orders. The Commissioner upheld the original order, emphasizing that the respondent's use of the brand name 'VETCARE' owned by M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. disqualifies them from the SSI exemption. However, the CESTAT allowed the respondent's appeal, asserting that the brand name belonged to the respondent, thereby justifying their eligibility for the exemption. The Supreme Court, upon review, found the CESTAT's conclusion flawed, as it contradicted the records and the Commissioner's findings. The Court referenced Explanation VIII, defining a brand name as indicating a connection between specified goods and a person using the name, regardless of registration. Citing a recent judgment, the Court clarified that using another company's brand name, even on different goods, disqualifies the party from claiming exemption benefits. Precedents were cited to support this interpretation, emphasizing that the mere use of additional words with a brand name does not alter the disqualification. In light of the above analysis, the Supreme Court deemed the CESTAT's decision erroneous and set it aside, thereby upholding the original order disqualifying the respondent from the SSI exemption due to the unauthorized use of the brand name 'VETCARE.'
|
