1997 (6) TMI 126 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order-in-original on duty payment basis; Interpretation of exemption notification regarding brand name usage; Application of Supreme Court decision on brand name definition; Determination of excisability for goods installed at buyer's sites.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal challenged the order-in-original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi regarding the duty payment based on the invoice price procedure used by the appellant. The dispute arose from the period between 1988 to July 1992, covering supplies made to various parties. The appellant contended that the collaboration agreement only related to drawings and designs, not the use of the brand name of the collaborator. The Commissioner demanded differential duty, alleging the use of the collaborator's brand name, which would disqualify the appellant from the benefit of partial exemption Notification 175/86.

The Tribunal initially set aside the order and remanded the case to address the brand name issue and the excisability of goods installed at buyer's sites. Upon remand, the Commissioner ruled against the appellant on both aspects, confirming the duty demand. The dispute centered on the interpretation of para 7 of Notification 175/86, which excludes goods affixed with another person's brand name. The Commissioner relied on precedents where the use of a foreign collaborator's brand name led to disqualification from exemption.

The Tribunal analyzed the definition of brand name in the notification and compared it to a similar definition in a Supreme Court decision. The Court's ruling in the pharmaceutical context emphasized the distinction between projecting the manufacturer's image and establishing a trade connection through the brand name. Applying this principle, the Tribunal found that the appellant did not use the collaborator's brand name but only indicated technical collaboration, entitling them to the exemption.

Regarding the excisability of goods installed at buyer's sites, the Commissioner's decision was deemed flawed for not considering the nature of assembly and erection. The appellant provided evidence of installations becoming part of immovable property, but the Commissioner's assessment focused on factory assembly without proper evaluation of the on-site installation process.

Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order, granting the appellant the benefit of the exemption. The ruling clarified that the appellant's use of the collaborator's name did not constitute brand name usage under the notification. While the excisability aspect was not remanded due to the appellant's success on the notification issue, the Tribunal highlighted the parties' rights to raise contentions in future proceedings.