9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the production of aerated waters in the six units can be considered as the production of one manufacturer. 2. Whether the six units used a common trade mark or brand name, disqualifying them from duty exemption under Notification No. 148/82-C.E., dated 22.4.1982. 3. Maintainability of the writ petitions without exhausting statutory remedies. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Production by One Manufacturer: The petitioners, six different partnership or proprietary concerns, engaged in the manufacture and sale of aerated waters, were alleged to be using a common trade mark "Sri Ganesh." The Superintendent of Central Excise issued a show-cause notice, claiming that the total value of clearance from these units exceeded Rs. 15,00,000, thus disqualifying them from duty exemption under Notification No. 148/82-C.E. The petitioners argued that they were independent entities with separate registrations, tax assessments, and manufacturing places. The Collector of Central Excise found that although the units were owned by related persons, they were properly constituted as separate entities with no suppression of facts. Thus, the charge that the production was by one manufacturer was not proved due to lack of evidence. 2. Common Trade Mark or Brand Name: The Collector of Central Excise concluded that the brand names used by the six units were deceptively similar, referring to their family deity "Sri Ganesh." Despite differences in the brand names (Sri Vignesh, Sri Pillaiyar, Sri Ganesh, Sri Anaimugam, etc.), the Collector held that they were synonymous and thus disqualified from duty exemption. However, the court found that these names did not have phonetic or visual similarity and that the resemblance to the deity "Sri Ganesh" was not sufficient to deem them deceptively similar. Moreover, the term "common trade mark aerated waters" as per Notification No. 148/82-C.E. required the use of the "same" trade mark, not "similar" ones. The court held that the petitioners were dealing in different trade marks and thus entitled to the exemption. 3. Maintainability of Writ Petitions: The respondents contended that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the petitioners had not exhausted the statutory remedies under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court, however, noted that the availability of alternate remedies is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of writ petitions. Since the matter involved interpretation of a statutory notification and did not require investigation into controverted questions of fact, the court held that the writ petitions were maintainable. The court cited precedents where writ jurisdiction was exercised despite the availability of alternate remedies, especially when the impugned order was based on a patent misconstruction or was patently unreasonable. Conclusion: The court quashed the order of the Collector of Central Excise, holding that the petitioners were entitled to the duty exemption under Notification No. 148/82-C.E., dated 22.4.1982. The court found that the Collector's interpretation of the notification was incorrect and that the brand names used by the petitioners were not deceptively similar. The writ petitions were thus allowed, and the impugned order was struck down.
|
