2019 (5) TMI 1227 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - use of brand name - Manufacture of Homeopathic Medicines - Medicaments used in Bio-chemic System and not bearing the brand name - benefit of N/N. 03/2005-CE dated 24.02.2005 - HELD THAT - Admittedly, SBL stands as an abbreviation of the assessee s name and the expression WORLD CLASS HOMOEOPATHY cannot be considered to be a brand name or trade name in the light of the explanation attached to the notification - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 03/2005-CE regarding duty exemption for Homeopathic Medicines under Chapter 30 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 based on brand name usage.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the eligibility of the appellant, engaged in manufacturing Homeopathic Medicines falling under Chapter heading 30, for the benefit of Notification No. 03/2005-CE dated 24.02.2005. The notification provides NIL rate of duty to excisable goods not bearing the brand name. The dispute arose as the appellant embossed "SBL-WORLD CLASS HOMOEOPATHY" on the retail pack, leading Revenue to claim that it constituted a brand name, rendering the appellant ineligible for the notification benefit.

The Appellate Authority, in line with the Supreme Court decision in Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. vs. Collector of C. Excise, Chandigarh, held that the embossment was the house mark of the assessee's manufacturing unit, not a brand name. The distinction between house mark and brand name was crucial. The house mark, such as "SBL," serves as the manufacturer's emblem on all products, projecting the manufacturer's image, while a brand name uniquely connects a product to a manufacturer. The appellant's embossment of "SBL WORLD CLASS HOMOEOPATHY" was deemed a house mark, not a product mark, as it lacked a direct relation to the medicine itself.

The Commissioner (Appeals) found no fault in the Appellate Authority's decision, emphasizing that "SBL" was an abbreviation of the assessee's name, and "WORLD CLASS HOMOEOPATHY" did not qualify as a brand name or trade name under the notification. Thus, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, upholding the appellant's eligibility for the duty exemption under Notification No. 03/2005-CE. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between house marks and brand names in determining duty exemption eligibility for excisable goods under specific notifications.