2015 (7) TMI 456 - HC - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - use of brand name / house-mark - the name VOLTARC has been inscribed on the packets/cartons - CESTAT concluded that the marks are not affixed on the goods and hence it cannot be said that others brand-name has been affixed - extended period of limitation - Held that - the Tribunal did not find that there was any justification in applying the extended period of limitation, and thus, the appeal came to be allowed accepting the plea of the respondent that the Order-in- Original is barred by limitation. Further, the Tribunal also found that Voltarc symbol which was being used on the wrapper and packer was reflecting only the name of the company and not the trade mark of the product. The argument of the respondent that even in the classification list they were mentioning the same and the Voltarc was not a brand but a trade-mark was accepted. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the symbols that are used by both the companies are different and distinct in character. While the appellants used the symbol V with a dot with India written below the V in case of M/s.Voltarc Electrodes Private Limited, between two Vs, there is electricity sign below with the name Voltarc. It was also found that there was no mark on the product as such. Tribunal is correct in setting aside the demand - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of brand-name under Notification No.1/93 CE.
2. Whether the conclusion drawn by CESTAT is correct in law or fact.
3. Denial of benefits of exemption under various notifications.
4. Allegation of suppression of facts and invocation of larger period of limitation.
5. Justification for applying the extended period of limitation.
6. Whether the order of the Tribunal is barred by limitation.
7. Determination of Voltarc symbol as a trade name or brand.
8. Comparison of symbols used by the companies.
9. Presence of any substantial question of law in the appeal.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where the Department challenged the Final Order passed by CESTAT. The main issue revolved around the interpretation of brand-name under Notification No.1/93 CE. CESTAT concluded that the marks not affixed on the goods did not constitute affixing another brand-name. The Tribunal found that the respondent, a separate legal entity, had been filing classification lists without mentioning the company name as their trade name, leading to the rejection of the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal also determined that the Voltarc symbol used by the respondent was the company's name and not a trade mark of the product, accepting the argument that Voltarc was not a brand but a trade-mark. The distinct symbols used by both companies further supported this finding.

Furthermore, the Tribunal's decision was upheld by the High Court, emphasizing the absence of any infirmity in the order. The Court noted that no substantial question of law was raised in the appeal, and the challenge regarding the limitation period was not contested. As a result, the Central Excise Appeal was dismissed for lacking merit, with no costs imposed. The Court highlighted that the appeal's dismissal rendered any pending Miscellaneous Petitions infructuous, concluding the legal proceedings in the matter.