1998 (7) TMI 272 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
- Eligibility of M/s. Bigen Industries for exemption under Notification No. 140/83 for their product liquid hair color under the brand name "Bigen."

Analysis:
1. Ownership of Brand Name: The issue at hand revolves around whether M/s. Bigen Industries are entitled to avail exemption under Notification No. 140/83 for their product. The Assistant Collector initially allowed the benefit of the notification to the Respondents, stating that they were the rightful owners of the brand name "Bigen" as per a Deed of Assignment and registration of the trademark in their name. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, emphasizing that the mere mention of the formulation being from another company does not disqualify the Respondents from the exemption. The Commissioner also noted that the Department's appeal was time-barred as no demands were issued within the stipulated period.

2. Arguments by Parties: The JCDR for the Revenue argued that the Respondents were using the formulation of a foreign company and displaying the Japanese company's name on the product, making them ineligible for the exemption. On the other hand, the Respondents' Counsel highlighted that the trademark was legally transferred to the Respondents, making them the rightful proprietors. They cited relevant case laws to support their claim that using the brand name registered in India, even if originally owned by a foreign company, should not affect their eligibility for the exemption.

3. Interpretation of Notification: The Tribunal analyzed Notification No. 140/83, which specifies that the exemption does not apply if the manufacturer affixes goods with a brand name of another ineligible person. The Tribunal noted that the Respondents acquired the trademark through a Deed of Assignment and registration, confirmed by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks. The Tribunal emphasized that the ownership of the brand name at the relevant time is crucial for determining exemption eligibility. They agreed with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Respondents using their own brand name did not violate the notification's provisions.

4. Previous Decisions and Conclusion: The Tribunal addressed the Revenue's argument regarding other units manufacturing the same product, stating that the Respondents' ownership of the trademark was legally established, and other manufacturers using the same brand name did not affect their entitlement to the exemption. Relying on precedents and the wording of the notification, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision. The Tribunal found no flaws in the impugned order and upheld the Respondents' eligibility for the exemption under Notification No. 140/83.