1992 (7) TMI 158 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement for S.S.I. exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for goods manufactured under the brand name 'Hotline.'

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, addressed the issue of whether the appellants were entitled to S.S.I. exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for manufacturing L.P.G. Gas Stoves under the brand name 'Hotline.' The appellants argued that they were entitled to the exemption as the trade mark 'Hotline' was transferred to them from another company, and they were the rightful owners. The Departmental Representative contended that the assignment of the trade mark was not sufficient to claim the exemption and that the previous owner continued to be the owner. The Tribunal considered the provisions of the Notification, specifically Para 7 and Explanation VIII, which state that the exemption does not apply if the goods are affixed with a brand name of another person not eligible for the exemption. The Tribunal noted that the ownership of the brand name determines eligibility for the exemption. Since the trade mark 'Hotline' was transferred to the appellants and duly registered under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the Tribunal found no justification to deny the exemption. The Tribunal emphasized that ownership is the key criterion for determining eligibility for the exemption under the Notification. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, granting the appellants the benefit of the exemption.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified that the ownership of the brand name is crucial in determining eligibility for S.S.I. exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The Tribunal emphasized that if the brand name belongs to the manufacturer, the benefit of exemption cannot be denied. The transfer of the trade mark 'Hotline' to the appellants, duly registered under the relevant statute, established their ownership and entitlement to the exemption. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the specific provisions of the Notification and the legal principles governing ownership of brand names in the context of excise law. By interpreting the Notification and considering the transfer of the trade mark, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants met the criteria for the exemption and allowed their appeals with consequential relief.