2001 (4) TMI 404 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of brand name usage for duty liability on branded pickles.
2. Application of SSI exemption Notifications on branded pickles.
3. Differentiation of brand names for duty exemption eligibility.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the duty liability on branded pickles manufactured by an SSI unit. The department alleged that the brand name "Mahaan TASTEMAKER" used by the unit belonged to another entity, impacting the duty exemption eligibility. The lower appellate authority ruled in favor of the unit, stating that the brand name used was distinct and eligible for duty exemption under relevant Notifications.

2. The main contention of the Revenue was that the brand name "Mahaan TASTEMAKER" belonged to a different entity, M/s. MFL. The Revenue argued that the unit admitted to this fact and interchangeably used the same monogram for pure ghee and pickles. Additionally, the Revenue challenged the reliance on a previous Tribunal decision and a Board Circular by the lower appellate authority.

3. Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the brand name "Mahaan" was registered for specific food products by M/s. MFL, different from the pickles produced by the unit. The Tribunal noted that the application for the brand name "Mahaan TASTEMAKER" was made before the dispute period, and the unit declared its usage to the department. The Tribunal concluded that the brand names were distinct, and the pickles qualified for SSI exemption under the Notifications.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, ruling that the brand name "Mahaan TASTEMAKER" used by the unit was separate from "Mahaan" belonging to M/s. MFL. Therefore, the pickles cleared by the unit during the dispute period were eligible for duty exemption under the relevant Notifications. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, affirming the lower appellate authority's order.