1998 (2) TMI 246 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86 for exemption eligibility based on brand name ownership.

Detailed Analysis:
The appeal filed by M/s. Raj Laxmi Enterprises challenges the Order-in-Original dated 27-8-1990 passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad. The main issue raised is whether the appellants are entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986. The appellants manufacture metal labels with monograms bearing the brand name of Ravi. The Additional Collector denied the benefit, citing that the brand name owner is not eligible for exemption, referring to a Supreme Court decision in the case of Jay Engineering. The appellant's counsel argued that the Supreme Court decision in Jay Engineering was in a different context and not applicable to the present case. The counsel highlighted a circular issued by the Board clarifying that names printed on metal labels are not brand names by themselves and as long as these labels are not affixed on goods where the name/logo serves as a brand name, the exemption should apply.

The respondent countered the appellant's arguments by invoking the Supreme Court decision in Jay Engineering to justify the denial of the exemption under Notification No. 175/86. However, the Tribunal examined the matter and found that the Supreme Court's decision in Jay Engineering was in a different context related to finished products and claiming set off under a different notification. The Tribunal emphasized the clarity of the Board's circular, which stated that metal labels bearing brand names are not considered brand names themselves unless affixed to goods where they serve as brand names. The Tribunal also noted that the circulars issued by the Board are binding on the department, citing a Supreme Court decision in the case of Ranadey Micronutrients. Consequently, the Tribunal held that there was no justification for denying the benefit under Notification No. 175/86 if the appellants were otherwise eligible. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the Cross Objections were disposed of accordingly.