1996 (8) TMI 204 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Determination of entitlement to benefit under Notification No. 175/86 based on the use of brand name or trade name of another manufacturer not eligible for exemption.

In the present appeal, the issue revolves around whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 despite using a brand name that was previously associated with a manufacturer not eligible for the exemption. The dispute arises from the interpretation of Para 7 of the Notification concerning the use of brand names or trade names of manufacturers not entitled to the exemption.

The respondents, engaged in manufacturing detergent powder and cakes, used the brand names 'Skylark' and 'Super star'. The ownership of the trade mark 'Skylark' was transferred to them by M/s. CMC (India) Pvt. Ltd. after being initially registered by Shri Shantilal P. Jain and Subodh S. Shah of Calcutta.

The central argument put forth by the department is that since M/s. CMC (India) uses the same brand name for a different product and is not eligible under Notification No. 175/86, the respondents should also be denied the benefit of the Notification due to the brand name association.

Upon careful consideration of submissions, the Tribunal analyzed the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, emphasizing that ownership of the brand name determines eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving gas stoves under the brand name 'Hotline' to establish the importance of brand name ownership in granting exemption under the Notification.

The Tribunal distinguished a case involving two sister units with the same brand name but different products, highlighting that in the present case, the respondents unequivocally own the brand name 'Skylark' for detergent powder and cakes, thus justifying their eligibility for the exemption.

Another judgment cited by the department was analyzed, where the use of a brand name owned by a different entity for a different product led to the denial of exemption. However, in the current appeal, the ownership of the brand name 'Skylark' by the respondents for their specific products was a crucial factor in determining their entitlement to the benefit under Notification No. 175/86.

Based on the precedent set by previous cases and the ownership principle established in the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, the Tribunal upheld the lower Appellate authority's decision, affirming the eligibility of the respondents for the benefit of Notification 175/86 and dismissing the appeal.