2004 (2) TMI 121 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 despite using the brand name and logo of another company on their product.

Analysis:
1. The appeal raised the issue of whether the respondents should be denied the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 for using the brand name and logo of a different company on their goods. The respondents, manufacturers of automatic electrical stabilizers, were initially denied the benefit of the notification by the adjudicating authority. However, on appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed this decision based on the interpretation of the brand name usage. The Revenue challenged this decision, leading to the current appeal.

2. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the respondents prominently displayed their own brand name "SARAT" on the goods, along with phrases indicating technical assistance from another company. The Commissioner concluded that the usage of the brand name "SARAT" did not imply that the product was manufactured by the other company. This interpretation aligned with a previous decision by the Tribunal in Weigand India (P) Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi.

3. The appellant-Revenue argued that the decision in Weigand India (P) Ltd. was not directly applicable to the present case, citing a different case involving brand name association. The appellant highlighted the decision in Chopra Appliances v. CCE, Delhi, where the Tribunal ruled against the benefit of a notification due to the use of another company's brand name on the product. The Tribunal in this case distinguished previous decisions to support its conclusion.

4. The respondent-assessee contended that they were independent manufacturers using their own brand name "SARAT" and had received technical know-how from another company. They emphasized that the references to the other company were related to technical assistance and did not indicate that the product was manufactured by that company.

5. The Tribunal analyzed previous cases involving brand name usage and technical collaborations to determine the applicability of the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 in the present case. It concluded that the usage of the other company's name was not as a trade mark but to indicate the source of technical know-how, similar to the situations in Weigand India (P) Ltd. and Chemguard Coatings Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.