1990 (2) TMI 223 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
The appeal against the order of the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Madras regarding the eligibility of the appellants for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 due to the use of the brand name 'Master Piece' on quartz wall clocks manufactured by them.

Summary:
The appellants contended that their product's brand name was 'Master Piece Regulator' and not 'Master Piece', and that they were manufacturing wall clocks falling under Tariff Heading 9105.00, eligible for the notification, while wrist watches fell under Tariff Heading 9102.00, excluded from the benefit. The lower authority found the appellants used the brand name 'Master Piece' and were not eligible for the notification, imposing duty and penalty. The appellants argued that the brand name usage on non-specified goods should not disentitle them from the benefit, citing definitions and Board instructions.

The Department argued that evidence showed the appellants used the brand name 'Master Piece' on wall clocks, making them ineligible for the notification. The Tribunal observed the conditions in para 7 of the notification, emphasizing the need to establish ownership and eligibility of the brand name used. It discussed the interpretation of 'brand name' and 'trade name' in the context of the notification, highlighting the intention to disentitle manufacturers using another person's brand name without ownership rights. The Tribunal found lack of examination on ownership and eligibility of the brand name 'Master Piece' used by another manufacturer, remanding the matter for further adjudication.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of establishing ownership and eligibility of the brand name used, and providing the appellants with a hearing opportunity.