2001 (3) TMI 707 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Claim of exemption under Notification No. 1/93 for pesticides bearing the mark 'Agr Evo' - Interpretation of para 4 of Notification 1/93 and Explanation IX - Re-computation of duty demand - Applicability of house mark concept to pesticides - Differential duty calculation for goods under own brand name.

Analysis:

The appellants, manufacturers of pesticides, sought exemption under Notification No. 1/93 for goods bearing the mark 'Agr Evo'. The lower authorities denied the exemption citing para 4 of the Notification and Explanation IX, leading to a duty demand on those goods. The appellant argued that 'Agr Evo' is a house mark of another company and not a trade mark, referencing a Supreme Court decision. They contended that even if exemption was denied, a fresh duty computation excluding 'Agr Evo' goods was necessary. The Departmental Representative argued that the Supreme Court's house mark decision applied only to medicines, not pesticides. The Tribunal clarified that the house mark rule pertains to medicines, not pesticides, and the 'Agr Evo' mark linked the goods to another company, justifying denial of the exemption. However, they noted that duty reassessment should consider the exclusion of branded goods while determining the exemption limit. Therefore, they confirmed the denial of exemption for 'Agr Evo' goods but ordered a remand for re-computation of duty demand.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption for goods with the 'Agr Evo' mark but directed a re-computation of duty demand. The judgment clarified that the house mark concept applied to medicines, not pesticides, and emphasized the exclusion of branded goods when determining the exemption limit. The re-assessment was deemed necessary to calculate the net differential duty payable by the appellant accurately.