2000 (7) TMI 134 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the two-in-one manufactured by M/s. Wavetronics is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986.

Analysis:
The appeal in question involved the eligibility of the two-in-one manufactured by M/s. Wavetronics for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. The Appellants claimed to be a registered small scale unit producing two-in-one products cleared under the brand name 'National RXC40F'. The issue arose when the Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) denied them the exemption, stating that affixing the goods with the brand 'National' made them ineligible for SSI benefits under para 7 of the Notification. The Appellants argued that 'National' was a well-known name in relation to their goods, and they had not affixed the goods with a brand name of another person in India. The dispute also involved the time limit for excise duty demand, with the Appellants contending that the demand was not time-barred based on the filing date of the R.T.-12 return.

The submissions made by the Appellants were countered by the learned D.R., who argued that affixing the goods with the brand name 'National' rendered them ineligible for the exemption. The D.R. cited a precedent set by the Larger Bench of the Appellate Tribunal in a similar case, establishing that affixing goods with a foreign brand name disqualified them from small scale exemption benefits. After considering both sides' arguments, the Tribunal found that the Appellants had indeed affixed the goods with the brand name 'National RX C 40F', which was associated with a foreign company. The Tribunal held that the use of the brand name 'National' alone was sufficient to trigger the provisions of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86, disqualifying the Appellants from the exemption. The Tribunal referenced Explanation VIII of the Notification, defining 'Brand Name' and emphasizing the connection in the course of trade associated with the use of such a name. Relying on the precedent set by the Larger Bench, the Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Appellants, affirming that affixing goods with a foreign brand name made them ineligible for the exemption under the Notification.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86, the use of the brand name 'National' by the Appellants, and the precedent established by the Larger Bench regarding the ineligibility for exemption benefits when affixing goods with a foreign brand name. The judgment clarified the scope of the Notification, the definition of 'Brand Name,' and the implications of affixing goods with a brand associated with a foreign entity, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appeal.