2002 (2) TMI 125 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the validity of an agreement for the transfer of registered trade marks without proper registration, and the eligibility of a party to avail benefits under specific exemption notifications without proper registration.

Validity of Agreement for Transfer of Trade Marks:
The respondent had filed classification lists claiming exemption benefits under specific notifications for their product "Comfit Always." A show cause notice was issued as the brand name 'Comfit' was believed to belong to another entity. The respondent clarified that they were the sole manufacturer of 'Comfit Always' and not M/s. Christine Hoden (I) Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant Collector denied the benefits based on the brand ownership. However, the CEGAT accepted that a Deed of Assignment had transferred the brand to the respondent, making the exemption notifications applicable.

Eligibility for Exemption Benefits:
The CEGAT concluded that the failure to obtain permission from the Trade Mark Authority did not invalidate the transfer of the trade mark, thus allowing the exemption notifications to apply to the respondent. The dispute revolved around whether the respondent could claim exemption benefits or pay excise duty at the standard rate. The Supreme Court's judgment in Navin Chemicals Mfg. & Trading Co. Ltd. emphasized that issues related to classification of goods and exemption notifications directly impact the rate of duty and value of goods for assessment purposes.

Application under Section 35H:
The Commissioner filed an application under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, seeking a reference to the High Court. The respondent argued that the issue pertained to the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment, making it unsuitable for a reference under Section 35H. Citing the Supreme Court's interpretation, the respondent contended that the dispute directly related to duty rates and goods' value for assessment, thus not warranting a reference under Section 35H.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the application, agreeing with the respondent that the issue raised was intricately linked to the rate of excise duty and goods' value for assessment, making it ineligible for a reference under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act.