1997 (9) TMI 262 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86 regarding the benefit eligibility for specified goods carrying brand names of both the manufacturer and a marketing firm.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appellant company manufactured patent medicines with brand names like Ventol Tablets, Paltrim Suspension, Apitas Syrum, and Ventol-B Tablets. The dispute arose as the packages displayed logos of both the appellant company and a marketing firm, leading to a denial of benefits under Notification No. 175/86 by lower authorities.

2. The appellant argued that since the brand names like Apitas, Ventol, and Paltrim were owned by them and prominently displayed on the packages, the association created in the purchaser's mind should entitle them to the benefit of the notification, despite the presence of the marketing firm's logo.

3. The Revenue contended that the presence of the marketing firm's logo on the packages created an association with the trade name of another person, making the appellant ineligible for the benefit. They cited previous Tribunal judgments to support their argument.

4. The Tribunal analyzed the Notification, which stated that the benefit would not apply if specified goods carried a brand name of another ineligible person. The definition of 'brand name' or 'trade name' indicated a connection in the course of trade between the goods and a person using the name or mark.

5. The Tribunal observed that the brand names like Apitas, Ventol, and Paltrim were prominently displayed on the packages, indicating a connection with the appellant. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal emphasized that ownership of these brand names determined eligibility for the notification benefit.

6. Regarding the presence of logos of both the manufacturer and the marketing firm, the Tribunal distinguished this case from previous judgments where only the marketing firm's logo was present. In this instance, both brand names were displayed, leading to a decision in favor of the appellant company for entitlement to the benefit under Notification No. 175/86.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, legal interpretations, and the Tribunal's reasoning behind granting the benefit to the appellant company in this case.