2005 (8) TMI 151 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of brand name for availing SSI benefit under Notification 18/98
2. Determination of the location of the impugned term on goods and packaging
3. Consideration of time-bar in relation to previous judgments

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Interpretation of brand name for availing SSI benefit under Notification 18/98:
The case involved a dispute where the appellants affixed their own brand names on goods and primary packaging but also included the term "As seen on TSN/VTS" on outer cartons. The Revenue sought to deny the SSI benefit under Notification 18/98, arguing that the term was the brand name of another person. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where a sticker indicating quality standard did not constitute use of another person's trademark. The Commissioner distinguished the case based on the location and relevance of the impugned term, ultimately denying the benefit.

Issue 2 - Determination of the location of the impugned term on goods and packaging:
The Commissioner found that the term "As seen on TSN/VTS" was only on the outer cartons and not on the goods or primary packaging. The Tribunal emphasized that markings on secondary packing, like outer cartons, are not considered for determining assessable value under Central Excise Law. They reiterated that if goods and primary packaging bear the appellant's brand name, they should be assessed at that stage, not based on markings on secondary packing for transportation purposes.

Issue 3 - Consideration of time-bar in relation to previous judgments:
The appellants argued that previous judgments favored them on the time-bar issue, citing settlements and rulings in similar cases. The Tribunal noted the importance of quantification and the date of first use of the impugned terms. They referenced a case where the benefit of exemption was upheld for goods with brand names only on containers, not the goods themselves. Additionally, the Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' compliance with limitations and lack of deliberate duty avoidance, leading to the duty demands and penalties being set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, upholding the benefit of the exemption under Notification 18/98 based on the merits and time-bar considerations, thereby setting aside the duty demands and penalties.