2001 (8) TMI 422 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Entitlement to SSI exemption based on the use of a trademark belonging to another firm.
2. Interpretation of brand name and house mark in relation to exemption notification.
3. Determining the eligibility for SSI exemption under Notfn. No. 1/93.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The Commissioner held that the appellants were not entitled to the SSI exemption despite using another firm's trademark not eligible for the exemption. The authorities alleged that the trademark 'Hathi' belonged to a different pharmacy, leading to a demand for duty and penalties. The appellants argued that they owned the brand name 'Hathi' and were eligible for the exemption. The tribunal noted that the elephant logo used was not a registered trademark and could be used by anyone, thus rejecting the denial of SSI exemption.

Issue 2:
The appellants contended that the 'Hathi' logo was a house mark, not a brand name, citing a distinction between house marks and product marks. Referring to legal precedents, they argued that the elephant logo represented the manufacturer, not the product being sold. The tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the goods were identified by names like Kafeshwari and Sundari, not 'Hathi,' concluding that the SSI exemption was wrongly denied.

Issue 3:
The tribunal examined the definitions of brand name and trade name under Notfn. No. 1/93, emphasizing the indication of a connection in the course of trade between the specified goods and a person using the name or mark. It was established that the elephant logo, being unregistered, did not exclusively belong to any entity, allowing its use by different manufacturers. The tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, stating that the logos used by the two manufacturers were different, thereby upholding the eligibility for SSI exemption.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, allowed the appeal, granting the appellants the SSI exemption under Notfn. No. 1/93. The judgment clarified the distinction between house marks and brand names, emphasizing that the use of an unregistered logo did not disqualify the appellants from the exemption. The decision highlighted the importance of the specific identification of goods in determining eligibility for tax exemptions based on trademarks.