2000 (8) TMI 140 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the name "Super Trailer" painted on agricultural trailers constitutes a brand name as per the notifications.
2. Whether the brand name belonged to a trader or a manufacturer, affecting eligibility for exemption under the notifications.
3. Whether there was evidence of transfer or assignment of the brand name to the trader.
4. Interpretation of the term 'of' in the relevant notifications for determining ownership of the brand name.

Issue 1:
The Commissioner determined that the name "Super Trailer" on the trailers was a brand name, leading to denial of exemption benefits under the notifications. The appellants argued that the name described the quality of the trailers, not constituting a brand name. However, the Tribunal found this argument unconvincing, emphasizing that a name describing quality could still be a brand name. The Tribunal also noted that the word 'Super' was not an adjective in languages using the Devnagari script, supporting the Commissioner's decision.

Issue 2:
The key argument raised by the appellants was that the brand name did not belong to the trader mentioned by the Commissioner, impacting eligibility for exemption. They contended that the brand name actually belonged to a manufacturer entitled to the grant of exemption. The Tribunal examined the history of the entities involved and concluded that the brand name belonged to the manufacturer, not the trader, based on the timeline of establishment and operations of the entities.

Issue 3:
The Commissioner acknowledged the appellants' contention regarding the ownership of the brand name by the manufacturer. While there was an arrangement between the manufacturers and the trader for selling the trailers, it did not establish a transfer or assignment of the brand name. The Tribunal differentiated between permission to use a brand name and actual ownership, finding no evidence of transfer to the trader during the relevant period.

Issue 4:
The Tribunal referred to a previous decision and a Board's circular to interpret the term 'of' in the notifications as meaning 'belong to.' It was highlighted that the requirement for denying benefits hinged on the brand name belonging to the trader, which was not proven in this case. Consequently, the demand for duty and penalties imposed by the Commissioner were deemed unjustified, leading to the allowance of the appeals and setting aside of the impugned order. Additional evidence sought to be introduced by the appellants was not considered necessary in light of the findings.