2007 (8) TMI 149 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption Revenue contended that appellant is not entitle for SSI exemption on the ground that the superscript used in the packet resembles the connection with the brand name/trade name with the other SSI exemption not allowable

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notifications No. 5/99-C.E. and No. 6/2000-C.E. regarding concessional rate of duty for cement, Use of brand name/trade name on product packets, Intent to indicate a connection between the product and another company, Benefit of Notifications for M/s. Dharani Cements Ltd., Admissibility of superscription "A Subsidiary of Grasim Industries Ltd."

Analysis:
The case involved M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd., formerly known as M/s. Dharani Cements Ltd., availing the concessional rate of duty under Notifications No. 5/99-C.E. and No. 6/2000-C.E. for cement. The dispute arose due to the use of the superscription "A Subsidiary of Grasim Industries Ltd." on the cement packets, indicating a connection between the product and Grasim Industries. The department contended that this superscription constituted a brand name/trade name, disqualifying them from the benefit of the Notifications.

The Tribunal referred to a previous Supreme Court judgment regarding a similar dispute for an earlier period. The Supreme Court held that the use of the superscription indicated a connection between the product and Grasim Industries, making M/s. Dharani Cements Ltd. ineligible for the concessional rate of duty. The Tribunal noted that the intention behind the superscription was to establish a trade connection between the product and Grasim Industries, a manufacturer of well-known cement brands.

The appellants argued that for the subsequent period, the intention behind the superscription was not to indicate a connection with Grasim Industries. However, the Tribunal found it challenging to accept this claim, as the intention remained consistent with the earlier period. The use of the superscription was deemed to signify a connection between the product and Grasim Industries, making them ineligible for the benefit of the Notifications.

Based on the Supreme Court's judgment and the consistent intention behind the superscription, the Tribunal upheld that the superscription constituted a brand name/trade name as defined in the Notifications. Consequently, the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of the Notifications for the period in question. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming the impugned orders in line with the legal interpretation provided by the Supreme Court.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision aligned with the legal principles established by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the significance of brand names/trade names in determining eligibility for concessional rates of duty under specific Notifications.