2004 (6) TMI 92 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the use of the brand name "Fountain" belonging to the Foreign Partner would deny the Respondent the benefit of SSI concessions?
2. Whether the process of mixing duty-paid coffee powder/tea powder with sugar and whitener to make pre-mix coffee/pre-mix tea, and mixing chocolate powder with sugar and skimmed milk to make drinking chocolate, amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, 1944?

Analysis:

Issue No. 1:
The Revenue argued that using the brand name "Fountain" would disqualify the Respondent from SSI concessions, citing the Namtech Systems Limited case. However, the Respondent's Counsel distinguished the case, highlighting the equity partnership between the Respondent and Fountain Consumer, Netherlands Holding. Referring to legal definitions and the New Horizons Limited case, it was established that the brand "Fountain" was owned by the Joint Venture Company, making it eligible for SSI benefits. Previous Tribunal decisions further supported this stance, emphasizing exclusive rights and registration of the brand. Consequently, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Respondent, stating that using the brand "Fountain" did not affect the SSI exemption eligibility.

Issue No. 2:
Regarding the manufacturing process of mixing coffee/tea powder with sugar and whitener, and chocolate powder with sugar and skimmed milk, the Tribunal found no evidence indicating a change in the original products. Affidavits from dealers confirmed that the products were still recognized and sold as coffee/tea or chocolate. Citing precedents and the burden of proof on the Revenue, the Tribunal concluded that the mixing process did not alter the essential character of the products. Rulings from previous cases and Supreme Court decisions supported this view, emphasizing the lack of transformation in the products. Therefore, the Tribunal determined that the mixing process did not constitute manufacturing under the Central Excise Act, 1944. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the initial order and dismissed the appeal by the Revenue.