2000 (12) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of notification 1/93 regarding brand names on goods for exemption.
2. Determination of ownership and use of a brand name for exemption eligibility.
3. Consideration of legal ownership vs. use of a brand name in the absence of registration.
4. Compliance with circular 52/52/94-CX regarding brand names not belonging to anyone.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of notification 1/93 to goods manufactured by a company using a brand name "JK" on their containers. The issue arose when it was alleged that the brand name belonged to another entity, affecting the eligibility for exemption under the notification. The Assistant Commissioner initially ruled against the company, stating that the brand name belonged to a different entity, thus disqualifying the goods from the exemption.

Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned the decision, emphasizing that the condition in the notification referred to affixing a brand name used by another manufacturer. The Commissioner noted that the partner of the alleged brand name owner firm had affirmed that they ceased using the brand name from a specific date. The appeal was allowed based on this finding, which the department challenged in the subsequent appeal.

The department argued that the ownership of the brand name, not just its use, was crucial in determining exemption eligibility. However, it was highlighted that the brand name was not registered, and there was no conclusive evidence of ownership by the alleged entity. The judgment emphasized the distinction between ownership and use of a brand name, stating that if the alleged owner did not legally own the brand name, it remained in the public domain for anyone to use.

Furthermore, the judgment referred to Circular 52/52/94-CX, which clarified that brand names not belonging to anyone could be used by multiple manufacturers without contravening the notification's conditions. The decision criticized the Assistant Commissioner's ruling for being contrary to the law and disregarding the directives from higher authorities. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in favor of the company manufacturing the goods.