2008 (11) TMI 243 - AT - Central Excise

Revenue is aggrieved by the order of Commissioner (Appeals) on classification of Ramtirth Brahmi Oil under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 3003.31 attracting nil rate of duty. According to the Revenue, the product falls for classification under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 3003.39 for the reason that Ramtirth is a brand name - Since the authorities below have found and accepted that Ramtirth is a house name and not a brand name of M/s. Ramtirth International, the classification of product as adopted by the Commissioner in the order does not call for any interference

Summary

Issues:
Classification of 'Ramtirth Brahmi Oil' under Central Excise Tariff sub-heading 3003.31 vs. 3003.39 - Whether 'Ramtirth' is a brand name or a house name of M/s. Ramtirth International.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai pertained to the classification of 'Ramtirth Brahmi Oil' under the Central Excise Tariff. The Revenue contested the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which classified the product under sub-heading 3003.31 attracting a 'nil' rate of duty. The Revenue argued that the product should be classified under sub-heading 3003.39 due to 'Ramtirth' being considered a brand name. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been previously considered in a case involving the same assessee. In the earlier case, the Tribunal had remitted the question of whether 'Ramtirth' constituted a house name or a brand name of M/s. Ramtirth International, potentially affecting the eligibility for an exemption notification.

Upon reviewing subsequent developments, the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner, in a later order, determined that 'Ramtirth' was a house mark and not a brand name of M/s. Ramtirth International. Importantly, no appeal had been filed against this decision by the Revenue. This finding was reiterated in a subsequent Order-in-Original, which followed the Commissioner's classification. Given that the authorities had consistently recognized 'Ramtirth' as a house name and not a brand name, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's classification and rejected the appeal. The decision was made based on the established understanding that 'Ramtirth' did not qualify as a brand name, thereby affirming the classification under challenge.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision emphasized the importance of distinguishing between a brand name and a house name in determining the appropriate classification under the Central Excise Tariff. The consistent findings by the authorities that 'Ramtirth' was a house name, not a brand name, guided the Tribunal in upholding the classification of 'Ramtirth Brahmi Oil' under the relevant sub-heading. The legal analysis underscored the significance of factual determinations in such classification disputes and highlighted the impact of previous decisions on subsequent proceedings.