9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (7) TMI 441 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - use of Brand name of others - It was alleged that they are using the emblem that is being used by M/s. Micro Labs, Hosur - N/N. 01/93 dated 01.03.1993 - Held that - there is no allegation in the SCN that the emblem wave linesbelongs to Micro Labs and that the respondent has used it is correct. In fact, the allegation raised is only that the emblem embossed indicates a communication in the course of trade between such specified goods and Micro Labs who are using such emblem with or without as indication of the identified by using the emblem of Micro Labs who are not eligible for the grant of exemption under N/N. 1/93 dated 28.02.1993. Thus the allegation raised in the SCN does not make any sense - also, the department has not produced any evidence to show that the alleged trade mark belongs to Micro Labs. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals 1994 (12) TMI 77 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA has made a distinction between house mark and product mark(trade name). Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Manufacturers availing SSI benefit under Notification No. 01/93 alleged to be using another person's brand name, eligibility for SSI exemption questioned, demand for duty, interest, and penalty imposed. Analysis: The case revolved around manufacturers availing SSI benefit under Notification No. 01/93 dated 01.03.1993, accused of affixing another person's brand name on their products. The Show Cause Notice (SCN) alleged that the manufacturers were using an emblem belonging to a different entity, thus rendering them ineligible for the SSI exemption. The emblem in question was claimed to be used by M/s. Micro Labs on their product, Dolopar tablets. The Revenue contended that since the emblem was owned and used by Micro Labs, the manufacturers were not entitled to the SSI exemption. The authorities below were accused of misapplying previous judgments, including the case of M/s. Astra Pharmaceuticals vs. CCE, Chandigarh and CCE, Trichy Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the emblem "wave lines" did not belong to Micro Labs, and it was used to identify the manufacturer, not the product itself. They relied on the distinction between "house mark" and "product mark" in patent or proprietary medicines, as explained in the case of M/s. Astra Pharmaceuticals, to support their claim for eligibility for the SSI exemption. The Tribunal analyzed the contentions of both parties and reviewed the SCN. It noted that the allegation in the SCN did not specifically claim that the emblem belonged to Micro Labs. The Apex Court's distinction between "house mark" and "product mark" was cited, emphasizing that the house mark serves as an emblem of the manufacturer, while the product mark or brand name identifies the product. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of evidence presented by the department to prove that the alleged trade mark belonged to Micro Labs. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision in favor of the manufacturers availing the SSI benefit under Notification No. 01/93 dated 01.03.1993. In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis focused on the ownership and usage of the emblem, the distinction between house mark and product mark, and the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's claims. By applying legal principles and referencing relevant case law, the Tribunal upheld the eligibility of the manufacturers for the SSI exemption, emphasizing the importance of clear allegations and evidence in such matters.
|
