2001 (8) TMI 426 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Entitlement to SSI exemption under Notfn. No. 1/93 for using a trademark of another firm.
- Interpretation of brand name and house mark distinction in relation to the SSI exemption criteria.

Entitlement to SSI Exemption:
The case involved the appellants, engaged in manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines, using the trade name 'Unjha' and a trademark depicting an elephant in relation to their goods to avail SSI exemption under Notfn. No. 1/93. The authorities alleged that the trademark 'Hathi' belonged to another firm, thus denying SSI exemption and issuing a show cause notice for duty payment, penalty, and interest. The appellants argued ownership of the brand name 'Hathi' and non-violation of exemption provisions. The appellate tribunal noted the distinction between house mark and product mark, emphasizing that the elephant logo with 'UAP' represented the house mark, not the brand name, thus making the appellants eligible for SSI exemption.

Interpretation of Brand Name and House Mark:
The tribunal analyzed the definition of brand name or trade name under Notfn. No. 1/93, emphasizing its purpose to indicate a connection in the course of trade. The respondent contended that the elephant logo was the brand name and since it belonged to another entity, SSI exemption was rightly denied. However, the tribunal found that the elephant logo was not a registered trademark and could be used by anyone, concluding that it did not represent the brand name but the house mark. Referring to the distinction between house mark and product mark, the tribunal held that the goods were sold under names like Kafeshwari, Somkalpa, Sundari Sanjivani, not 'Hathi,' thus ruling in favor of the appellants' entitlement to SSI exemption.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the appellants' eligibility for SSI exemption under Notfn. No. 1/93, emphasizing that the elephant logo with 'UAP' differed from the logo used by the other firm, 'UNF,' indicating distinct manufacturers. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief. The judgment clarified the interpretation of brand name and house mark in the context of SSI exemption criteria, highlighting the importance of distinguishing between the two for determining eligibility for exemption benefits.