1996 (4) TMI 238 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Use of brand name by the appellants in the case of soda bottled by them.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, MADRAS involved the issue of the use of a brand name by the appellants in the case of soda bottled by them. The appellants argued that they were merely doing a job work for another company, which supplied them bottles bearing its brand name. They contended that since they did not emboss or label the bottles themselves, they should not be considered as using the brand name under Notification 1/93. The appellants relied on a previous judgment to support their argument. On the other hand, the Department argued that the aerated water with the branded bottles came into existence in the hands of the appellants, thus denying them the benefit of the notification.

Upon considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal observed that the appellants manufactured soda, which is aerated water, and bottled it in bottles already embossed with another person's brand name. The key question was whether the aerated waters could be considered as having the brand name of another person affixed by the appellants, thereby falling within the scope of Notification 1/93. The Tribunal noted that the notification had been subsequently amended to exclude specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name of another person from the exemption. The Tribunal interpreted the affixation of the brand name in the context of the goods manufactured, emphasizing that for aerated waters, the brand name could only be affixed by putting them in bottles already embossed. Therefore, by bottling the aerated waters in the branded bottles, the appellants were deemed to have affixed the brand name for marketing purposes.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal held that the earlier judgment cited by the appellant was not applicable to the present case. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants had affixed the brand name by using the branded bottles for marketing the aerated waters, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the lower authority's decision as legally valid.