Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2002 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2002 (10) TMI 808 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the excisable goods manufactured by a company were bearing the brand name of another person, making them ineligible for small scale exemption.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Brand Name Eligibility for Exemption
The main issue in this appeal was whether the excisable goods manufactured by the company were bearing the brand name of another person, thus disqualifying them from the benefit of small scale exemption. The Revenue contended that the goods were embossed with the symbol and logo "Tata" along with the company's own brand name "ACE," leading consumers to assume a connection with the Tata group of companies. The Revenue argued that the usage of the name "Tata" created an impression of association with the Tata group, making the company ineligible for the exemption. However, the company argued that the brand name "TATA ACE" indicated that the product was specific to their company and not part of the Tata group. The Tribunal examined the definition of brand name under the relevant notification and concluded that the brand name used did not belong to another person, thus not falling under the purview of the notification. Citing precedents where similar brand name distinctions were upheld, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and disposed of the cross objections filed by the company.

Key Points:
- The goods bore the brand name "TATA ACE," not just "Tata."
- Exemption not available if goods bear the brand name of another person.
- Definition of brand name under the notification considered.
- Tribunal found no evidence that the brand name belonged to another person.
- Precedents cited where similar brand name differentiations were upheld.
- Tribunal rejected Revenue's appeal and disposed of company's cross objections.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the Tribunal's decision regarding the eligibility of the company for small scale exemption based on the brand name used on the manufactured goods.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates