2004 (9) TMI 109 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the brand name or trade name should have been used by such other person in respect of the specified goods of the same kind or class as the goods manufactured by the assessees claiming exemption? Held that - The documents on the basis of which the impugned demand has been raised against the respondent were available with the Department as on the date of the seizure. There was as such no question of holding any further investigation into any further fact for the issue of the demand on the allegation that the assessees had wrongly availed of the exemption. The only investigation which was held related to the question whether the respondent was a dummy unit of Corona Plus Industries. It is submitted that the Department cannot take advantage of the investigation held in such connection to justify a time-barred claim relating to the first issue. In any event it is submitted that the respondent-firm had all along contended that it was also the owner of the brand name/trade mark in question. In fact, the application made by the respondent for registration of the trade mark in question, namely, Saving Plus had been made on 16-10-97. This application had been allowed by the trade mark authorities under the Trade Mark Act on 22-12-2003 with retrospective effect i.e. 6-10-97. It is, therefore, submitted that in any event, the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of the exemption Notification. We are of the view that having regard to the contention of the parties, the matter should be reheard by the Tribunal on both the issue of limitation as well as the issue of ownership. The decision of the Tribunal is, accordingly, set aside and the matter is remanded back for the aforesaid purpose. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 1 of 1993-C.E. regarding specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name of another person.

Analysis:
1. The appeals in this case revolve around the interpretation of exemption Notification No. 1 of 1993-C.E., specifically Paragraph 4 and Explanation IX, which address the exemption granted under Section 5(a) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The key issue is whether the brand name or trade name used by another person should be in connection with goods of the same kind or class as those manufactured by the assessees claiming exemption.

2. The Supreme Court, in previous decisions, clarified that the exemption notification aims to benefit industries without a brand name advantage. The Court emphasized that the exemption is not intended to protect trade mark owners or consumers from being misled, as those considerations are relevant in trademark disputes. The notification clearly debars those using someone else's name in connection with their goods to indicate a connection between the goods and that person, irrespective of the goods' similarity to the ones manufactured by the assessees.

3. The Court reiterated the principle that statutory provisions should be interpreted based on plain words unless ambiguity exists. While the Court acknowledged the need for strict interpretation in cases of exceptions, once ambiguity is resolved, a wider and liberal construction should apply. The exception in Paragraph 4 of the notification is not a technicality but defines the exemption's scope itself, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the stated conditions.

4. The Court addressed concerns raised by assessees regarding potential denial of exemption due to others using the same trade mark. It clarified that assessees would only be debarred if they intentionally indicate a connection between their goods and another person's goods through the brand name. Assessees can still claim exemption if they demonstrate no such intention or if the brand name belongs to them, regardless of others' entitlement to the name.

5. The Court remanded certain appeals back to the Tribunal for a decision on the issue of limitation, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of issues such as ownership of brand/trade names and compliance with exemption conditions. The decisions in various appeals were based on the specific circumstances and issues raised by the parties, highlighting the importance of a case-by-case analysis in such matters.

6. Overall, the judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of exemption notifications related to brand names and trade names in the context of excise duties, underscoring the importance of adherence to statutory provisions and the specific conditions outlined in the notifications for claiming exemptions.