1999 (10) TMI 758 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant was affixing excisable goods with the brand name of other persons affecting eligibility for Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1.3.1986.

Analysis:
The appeal involved M/s. Elymer Havells Electrics manufacturing electric meters affixed with the brand name 'Elymer Havells.' The Collector confirmed a demand for Central Excise duty and imposed a penalty, alleging the goods were not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. The appellant argued the brand was established since 1981, unregistered, and not related to electric meters. They cited precedents like Taj Serpent Eggs Factory case to support their claim that using a different brand name does not disqualify them from the notification's benefit.

The appellant contended that the mere presence of a marketing company's logo on packaging does not affect eligibility for the notification. They emphasized the differences in brand presentation and argued against penalty imposition. The appellant also challenged the invocation of a larger limitation period, citing departmental awareness of their brand usage and continuity in operations post-notification amendment.

The opposing view highlighted the Supreme Court's stance on preventing ineligible manufacturers from benefiting through indirect means. They pointed out the appellant's association with Havell's Group and payments for brand usage, indicating a connection in the course of trade. The argument relied on Explanation VIII to Notification No. 175/86, defining brand/trade names and emphasizing the recognizable connection between the appellant's goods and the brand owner.

The judgment observed the close association between the appellant's goods and the brand owner based on visual representation and payment for brand usage. It rejected the appellant's arguments on brand name differences and product dissimilarity, aligning with the Revenue's position. Citing relevant precedents like Bell Products case and Intercity Cable Systems, the judgment concluded that the appellant was not eligible for the notification's exemption. The decision also upheld the invocation of an extended limitation period due to the appellant's failure to disclose brand affixation to the Department, ultimately dismissing the appeal.