1998 (12) TMI 186 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86-C.E regarding brand name affixation on imported parts for manufacturing.
2. Application of case law precedents in determining eligibility for exemption under the notification.
3. Consideration of the brand name affixed on goods and its impact on eligibility for notification benefits.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 175/86-C.E
The case involved the appellant, a manufacturer of Radio Cassette Recorders, importing parts with the brand name "Sony" affixed. The appellant attempted to remove the brand name but resorted to pasting a sticker with their brand name "Osama" before selling the product. The controversy centered around whether the appellant was eligible for the exemption under Para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E due to the presence of the "Sony" brand name. Revenue argued that selling under the "Sony" brand name made the appellant ineligible for the notification.

Issue 2: Application of Case Law Precedents
The appellant contended that they did not affix the "Sony" brand name themselves as it was pre-existing on the imported part. Citing the case of Trimurti Weldmesh, the appellant argued that they should not be penalized for a brand name already present. Additionally, the appellant highlighted a Supreme Court judgment supporting their position, emphasizing the need for the manufacturer to affix the brand name for exemption to be denied. The Revenue, however, relied on judgments from Avery India Ltd. and Wood Glamour cases to support their stance.

Issue 3: Brand Name Affixed on Goods
The Tribunal analyzed the implications of Notification 1/93-C.E, which altered the language from "affixes the brand name" to "bearing the brand name" concerning manufacturers and goods. Notably, the Tribunal found that the presence of the "Sony" brand name on the imported part did not disqualify the appellant from the notification benefits. The goods carried the appellant's brand name "Osama," making the association with "Sony" incidental. This distinction, along with the absence of the "Sony" brand name on the final product, led to the Tribunal ruling in favor of the appellant, setting aside the previous order and granting the appeal with consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the nuanced legal interpretation and application of relevant laws and precedents in determining the eligibility of the appellant for exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E based on the brand name affixed on imported parts and the final product.