2006 (4) TMI 124 - SC - Central Excise

Whether assessee has been held to be entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 140/83-C.E.? Held that - The adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have proceeded on the basis as if the order passed by the Trade Mark Registry registering the trade mark in favour of the assessee is erroneous and of no consequence. The Tribunal is right in observing that once the trade mark has been registered in the name of the assessee by the statutory authority authorised to do so recognizing the assessee to be the sole proprietor of the trade mark for India, the adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in denying the benefit of the notification under consideration. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Statutory appeals under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against a Tribunal's final order granting exemption under Notification No. 140/83-C.E. to the assessee for the manufacture of 'Bigen Liquid Hair Colour' under a trade mark assigned by a Japanese firm.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Exemption Claim under Notification No. 140/83-C.E.:
The assessee, engaged in manufacturing 'Bigen Liquid Hair Colour,' claimed SSI exemption under Notification No. 140/83-C.E. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside previous orders and granting the exemption. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, confirming the exemption.

2. Trade Mark Ownership and Registration:
The assessee was assigned the trade mark 'Bigen' by a Japanese firm, registered with the Trade Mark Registry in Mumbai. The Registry recognized the assessee as the sole proprietor of the trade mark for India. The Tribunal held that the registration by the statutory authority established the assessee's entitlement to the exemption.

3. Previous Tribunal Orders and Finality:
Previous Tribunal orders had granted exemption to the assessee for specific periods, which became final as the Revenue did not challenge them further. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue could not take a different stand in the current appeals based on the principle of finality of judgments, citing relevant legal precedents.

4. Adjudicating Authority's Error:
The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner erred in denying the exemption based on the trade mark registration. The Tribunal emphasized that once the trade mark was registered in the assessee's name, the benefit of the notification could not be denied. The Tribunal's decision in the assessee's favor was supported by the legal principle of finality of judgments.

5. Dismissal of Appeals and Costs:
The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's order and dismissed the appeals, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The judgment affirmed the Tribunal's decision granting the exemption to the assessee based on the ownership and registration of the trade mark 'Bigen.'

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment highlights the key issues, arguments, and conclusions regarding the statutory appeals under the Central Excise Act and the entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 140/83-C.E. based on trade mark ownership and registration, as decided by the Tribunal and upheld by the Supreme Court.