9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Khadi Gramodyog Samiti (Navodaya in short) under the brand name "Saving Plus"; that it is specifically mentioned in the Agreement entered into between M/s. Corona Plus and Navodaya that M/s. Corona Plus are "the absolute owner/registered user of the Trade Mark, 'Saving Plus' for the detergent cake."; that three show cause notices were issued for denying the benefit of Notification No. 88/88 dated 1-3-88, as amended by Notification No. 35/97, dated 13-6-97, and for demanding Central Excise duty and imposition of Penalties; that the Commissioner, under the impugned Order has dropped the proceedings, observing that the brand name "Saving Plus" belongs to the Appellants and the benefit of Notification No. 88/88-C.E. cannot be denied to them. 3. The learned SDR, further, submitted that Corona Plus has been getting "Saving Plus" cake manufactured from Navodaya and "Saving Plus" detergent powder from the Appellants and marketing the same and Corona Plus Industries Ltd. is printed boldly on the products whereas the name of the Appellant is printed in small and inconspicuous manner; that Corona Plus had written to their distributors under their Circular dated 7-3-97 that they were the own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the goods are identical goods; that as the goods manufactured by Navodaya and the Respondents are different, the fact that Corona Plus is getting detergent cake manufactured under brand name "Saving Plus" from M/s. Navodaya is of no relevance. He, further, submitted that the Respondents are the owner of "Saving Plus" brand name for detergent powder; that they have applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai on 12-8-97 for registration of brand name "Saving Plus" in their name in respect of 'Detergent Washing Powders'; that the Joint Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai has issued a certificate dated 13-6-2000 to the effect that no trade mark, identical or deceptively similar to the artistic work represented in Respondents' application for such registration has been filed; that the Commissioner has recorded this fact in Para 14.1 of the impugned Order. 5.2 The learned Advocate also contended that the Respondents are also manufacturing Detergent Powder under brand names "New Extra Plus and Saving" which are similar to brand name "Saving Plus" which has not been disputed by the Department; that M/s. Corona Plus have never claimed the ownership of Saving Plus brand name for Detergen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ownership of brand name does not follow manufacturer of goods under that brand name." 7.1 We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Notification No. 88/88-C.E. exempts excisable goods from payment of duty if the goods have been manufactured in rural areas by specified Societies or Industries. The said notification was amended by notification No. 35/97-C.E., dated 13-6-1997 by which another condition was inserted for availing the benefit of Notification. As per this amendment the exemption contained in notification No. 88/88 will not be available to any goods bearing a brand name or trade name of other person. The Respondents are manufacturing Detergent Powder bearing brand name 'Saving Plus' which according to them is their brand name whereas the Revenue contends that the said brand name belongs to M/s. Corona Plus Industries Ltd. In support of their contention Revenue has relied upon another agreement which Corona Plus has entered into with M/s. Navodaya Khadi Gramodyog Sansthan. According to this agreement Navodaya has to manufacture detergent cake under the brand name 'Saving Plus'. Para 5.2 of the said agreement with Navodaya specifically mentions that Corona Plus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mtech Systems v. CCE, Bangalore - 2000 (115) E.L.T. 238 (T - LB) = 2000 (36) RLT 35 (CEGAT). Larger Bench has answered the reference by holding "that the benefit of Small Scale exemption is not available to the specified goods where the manufacturer affixes the said specified goods with the trade name of a foreign person and of a non-manufacturing traders." 9. As Corona Plus is dealing in detergent powder the Respondents have used the brand name of Corona Plus which is a non-manufacturing trader as far as detergent powder is concerned. In view of this we hold that the Respondents have manufactured the goods which are bearing the brand name of another person and as such the Respondents are not eligible to avail the benefit of Notification No. 88/88. No doubt the Respondents have applied with the Trade Mark Authorities for registration of Saving Plus brand name in respect of detergent washing powder. However, as the brand name so far has not been registered in their name they cannot claim that the brand name belongs to them. 10. We observe that 3 show cause notices were issued to the Respondents for demanding the duty. Show cause notice dated 27-1-2000 and dated 17-4-2000 are for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
