2000 (3) TMI 343 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E.
- Confirmation of demand for COSMOS brand toothpaste
- Confirmation of demand for AQUADENT brand toothpaste
- Entitlement to Small Scale exemption on assigning Brand name

Analysis:

The appeal involved a dispute arising from the Order-in-original No. 68/97 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi. The issues revolved around the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., the confirmation of demands for COSMOS and AQUADENT brand toothpaste, and the entitlement to the Small Scale exemption upon assigning the Brand name.

The primary question before the Tribunal was whether the assignee of a Brand name, the appellants in this case, were eligible for the Small Scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93. The appellants, a Small Scale Industry (S.S.I.) unit, had acquired the Brand name 'COSMOS' from another entity. The Commissioner initially granted the benefit of the notification until a certain date but later denied it, citing ownership issues of the Brand name.

The appellants argued that they were using the Brand names 'COSMOS' and 'AQUADENT' on their products and sought the benefit of the Small Scale exemption from the date of assignment. They relied on past Tribunal decisions to support their claim.

On the other hand, the Revenue contended that the benefit of the notification was only applicable from the date of registration of the assignment deed, not from the date of assignment itself. They emphasized the importance of registration for availing the exemption.

After careful consideration, the Tribunal referred to a previous case involving a similar issue and held that ownership of the Brand name was crucial for determining eligibility for the exemption. Relying on the precedent, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, granting them the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE for goods cleared under the Brand name 'COSMOS' from a specific date.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellants based on the interpretation of ownership criteria and the entitlement to Small Scale exemption on the assigned Brand name.