2006 (2) TMI 175 - SC - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - Trade/Brand name of other company - Held that - since Diakanol, Diakamin and Noigen are the registered trade marks of M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., the assessee-company would not be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. in respect of the above three registered trade marks. The order of the Tribunal with respect to these products, which are registered trade marks is affirmed. However, Amigen, Sorgen and Sigum are not the registered trade marks and there is no finding recorded by any of the authorities below or by the Tribunal on the assertion made by the assessee-company in its reply to the show cause notice that these are the product names only and any manufacturer producing the said goods will call them by the same names throughout the country. - In the absence of such decision on the point agitated by the assessee-company, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remit the case back to the Tribunal insofar as the unregistered products, namely, Amigen, Sorgen and Sigum are concerned - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for benefit under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. for goods manufactured by a Small Scale Industry (SSI).
2. Interpretation of the exemption clause in the notification regarding specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name of another person.
3. Classification of goods as registered or unregistered trade marks.
4. Distinction between brand/product name and trade name in determining eligibility for the notification benefit.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a statutory appeal under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, challenging the denial of benefit under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The Tribunal held that the assessee-company, engaged in manufacturing textile chemicals, was not eligible for the concessional rate of duty as per the notification due to the presence of brand names or trade names of another person on certain goods.

2. The notification specified that the exemption would not apply to goods bearing a brand name or trade name of another person. The Tribunal affirmed the denial of benefit for goods with registered trade marks of another company, while leaving the decision open for goods with unregistered trade marks, emphasizing the distinction between brand/product names and trade names.

3. The judgment clarified that out of the products in question, some had registered trade marks belonging to another company, while others did not. It was crucial to differentiate between registered and unregistered trade marks to determine eligibility for the notification benefit.

4. The primary contention of the assessee was that certain products were known by specific names throughout the country and were product names, not trade names. The court emphasized the need to decide on this distinction to ascertain the eligibility of the assessee for the notification benefit, particularly for products with unregistered trade marks.

5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, affirming the denial of benefit for products with registered trade marks but remitting the case back to the Tribunal for a fresh decision on products with unregistered trade marks. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between brand/product names and trade names in determining eligibility for statutory benefits under the Central Excise Act.