1998 (5) TMI 143 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 can be extended to three brand names of soaps manufactured by the appellants.

Analysis:
The main issue in this case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA was whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 could be extended to three specific brand names of soaps manufactured by the appellants. The authority below had denied the benefit of the notification, claiming that the brands of soaps belonged to others and, therefore, the appellants were not eligible for the benefit. The denial was based on the inscriptions on the wrappers of the soaps, indicating the involvement of other entities in the manufacturing or distribution process. The authority concluded that the appellants were not the owners of the brand names based on these inscriptions.

The appellants, represented by their consultant, argued that the brand names actually belonged to them and not to any other person or entity. They provided explanations for each brand name, asserting that the brands were owned by them and not by the entities mentioned on the wrappers. For instance, they clarified that mentioning another entity's name on the wrapper did not automatically mean that the brand belonged to that entity. The consultant also highlighted that there was no concrete evidence to support the authority's finding that the brand names belonged to others. Additionally, the consultant pointed out that the appellants had previously declared the manufacture of these soaps without the aid of power under a different notification, and they had been allowed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 for subsequent periods as well.

After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found that the authority's conclusion that the branded soaps belonged to others lacked evidence. Merely mentioning names of distributors or organizers on the wrappers did not conclusively prove ownership of the brand names by those entities. The statements relied upon by the authority were also found to be unclear and did not clearly establish that the brand names belonged to others. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 to the appellants for the three branded soaps was incorrect. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants, granting them consequential reliefs.