2004 (9) TMI 164 - AT - Central Excise

Classification of products - SSI Exemption - use of brand name 'VETCARE' owned by another company -penalty - HELD THAT - It is very clear from the records that the appellant is a company registered under the Company Act with the name VETCARE. Under the same name, the appellant's Company has also been registered as SSI with the Government of Karnataka. Under these circumstances, going by the ratio of the decision in case of K.M. Multani v. Paramount Talkies 1942 (3) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , we hold that the appellant has every right to use his Company's own name on his products. Therefore, the SSI benefit cannot be denied to the appellant even though the name VETCARE has been registered by another company, namely M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. In other words, so long as a Company uses its own name on its products, SSI benefit cannot be denied on the ground that the Company's name has been registered by another Company as its brand/trade name. Thus, the name VETCARE should be considered as house mark as far as the appellants are concerned. Hence, they will also be covered by the Supreme Court decision in case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh 1994 (12) TMI 77 - SUPREME COURT . Thus, there is no justification for denying SSI benefit and consequently, the levy of penalty is also not sustainable. The appeal is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Dispute over classification of products, entitlement to SSI benefit, use of brand name 'VETCARE' owned by another company, imposition of penalty under Central Excise Rules.

In the case of M/s. Vetcare Altech (P) Ltd., Bangalore, a dispute arose regarding the classification of their products and their eligibility for Small Scale Industry (SSI) benefit due to the use of the brand name 'VETCARE' owned by M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Original Authority, who held that the appellants were not eligible for SSI exemption in 1994-95 due to using the brand name of another company. The appellants challenged this decision on various grounds, including their legal registration and the distinct nature of their products compared to M/s. Tetragon. The appellants argued that they had not suppressed any facts to warrant the penalty imposed under Central Excise Rules.

During the proceedings, the appellants' advocate cited Section 147 of the Company Act to support their right to use their own name on products. Reference was made to the case law of K.M. Multani v. Paramount Talkies and other relevant legal precedents. The Revenue representative contended that the Original Authority's decision was lawful as the appellants had used another company's brand name not eligible for exemption during the relevant period.

The Tribunal considered the arguments presented and concluded that the appellant, a registered company under the Company Act with the name 'VETCARE,' had the right to use their own name on products. Citing the case of K.M. Multani v. Paramount Talkies, the Tribunal ruled that SSI benefit could not be denied based on the registration of the name 'VETCARE' by another company. The Tribunal found no justification for denying SSI benefit or imposing a penalty, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.