2000 (7) TMI 120 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. to the appellants due to the use of the brand name 'SANT' registered under another person.
- Ownership of the brand name 'SANT' by the appellants post the dissolution of M/s. Sant Brass Metal Works.
- Applicability of the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in a similar situation.
- Penalty imposition on the appellants for using the brand name 'SANT' independently.

Analysis:
The appellants filed appeals against the order-in-appeal denying them the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The denial was based on the use of the brand name 'SANT,' registered under Sant Brass Metal Works, by the appellants. The appellants argued that post the dissolution of the firm, Shri Ram Prakash Sikka became the owner of the brand name 'SANT' for non-ISI grade valves and cocks. They claimed ownership through honest concurrent use since 1986 and highlighted that Sant Brass Metal Works had stopped using the brand name 'SANT' and started manufacturing goods under a different brand name 'SBM.'

The Revenue, represented by the Learned JDR, emphasized that the brand name 'SANT' was a registered trademark of Sant Brass Metal Works and cited a decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court to support the denial of the exemption benefit. The High Court decision stated that partners cannot use a brand name independently, even with permission, if it is registered in the name of one partner. The Tribunal found this decision applicable to the present case and upheld the denial of the exemption benefit to the appellants based on the ownership of the brand name 'SANT.'

Regarding the penalty imposed on the appellants, they argued that the Assistant Collector had previously allowed ISI exemption under Notification No. 175/86, stating that they were using the brand name 'SANT' independently. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, citing the previous decision, and set aside the penalties imposed. Consequently, the impugned order was modified to remove the penalties, and the appeals were disposed of on this ground.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of the exemption benefit to the appellants based on the ownership of the brand name 'SANT' by Sant Brass Metal Works and the applicability of the High Court decision. However, the penalties imposed on the appellants were set aside considering the previous allowance of ISI exemption under a different notification.