2002 (2) TMI 222 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
Availability of benefit under Notification 8/99 for small scale industries.

Analysis:
In the case, the appellants manufactured goods known as Bullworker and claimed exemption under Notification 8/99. However, the authorities denied the exemption, stating that the appellants, a partnership concern, were not entitled to claim the benefit as they used the brand name "Bullworker," which belonged to another person. The department claimed a differential duty, which was confirmed in the orders. The main contention was whether the assignment of the brand name "Bullworker" to the appellants entitled them to the benefit of the notification. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the brand name continued to be perceived as owned by the previous owner, Bullworker Pvt. Ltd., and therefore, the benefit of the notification did not apply to the appellants. The Commissioner's decision was based on the perception that the brand name still belonged to the previous owner, despite the assignment to the appellants.

The appellants argued that the assignment deed clearly indicated that the right to exploit the trade mark "Bullworker" exclusively vested with them after the assignment. They emphasized that under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the provisions allowed for the assignment of trademarks. The Tribunal noted that the assignment deed transferred the trademark to the appellants, including the formula for manufacturing the product, and prohibited the previous owner from manufacturing or distributing the product. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had overlooked the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, which permitted the assignment of trademarks. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the Commissioner's decision was legally incorrect and allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that the assignment deed effectively transferred the trademark "Bullworker" to them, giving them the exclusive right to exploit the trade mark. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in not considering the legal provisions allowing for the assignment of trademarks. As a result, the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief in accordance with the law.