1999 (1) TMI 102 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
- Demand of duty and imposition of penalty under Rule 209A
- Denial of benefit of Notification 1/93 based on brand name ownership
- Invocation of extended period due to alleged suppression of facts
- Interpretation of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act regarding brand name registration
- Consideration of conflicting judicial decisions
- Applicability of circulars clarifying trade mark registration
- Financial hardship of the assessees

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai dealt with applications by 5 assessees against duty demands and penalties under Rule 209A, along with their partners contesting penalty imposition. The issue revolved around the denial of Notification 1/93 benefits due to the use of the brand name "Ashok India," claimed to belong to another entity, Chimandas Ashok Engineering Works. The extended period was invoked for alleged suppression of facts regarding brand name ownership. The applicants argued that the brand name registration under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act can differ for similar goods, citing judicial precedents like Paliwal Electrical v. CCE and B.H.E.L. Ancilliary Association v. CCE. They also highlighted circulars clarifying trade mark registration and the inapplicability of the extended period without statutory requirements.

The Departmental Representative contended that the products of the assessees and Chimandas were interchangeable and complementary, suggesting that the benefit of the notification should have been declared considering the brand name usage. The Tribunal analyzed conflicting decisions like Bell Products Co. v. UOI and Intercity Cable, along with the Division Bench judgment and Emkay Investment P. Ltd. v. CCE, leaning towards the applicants on the limitation issue. The Tribunal found that the applicants had made the Department aware of the brand name usage, questioning the presumption that the brand name belonged to the applicants. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered specific deposit amounts for each applicant, waiving the remaining duty and penalty upon compliance within a specified timeline.

In conclusion, the judgment delved into the complexities of brand name ownership, statutory requirements, conflicting judicial decisions, and the burden of proof regarding the brand name's association with the products manufactured. The decision aimed to strike a balance between the interests of the assessees and the enforcement of duty and penalty regulations, emphasizing the need for clarity and transparency in declaring brand name usage for availing statutory benefits.