Appellate Tribunal allows rectification of mistake, affixing brand name doesn't disqualify from benefits under Notification

The Appellate Tribunal allowed the application for rectification of mistake in Final Order No. 1210/98-C, finding that affixing a brand name on different products did not disqualify the manufacturer from availing benefits under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The Tribunal clarified that the Respondents, as owners of the brand name for their products, were entitled to the notification's benefits, as the brand name was registered for specific goods and not limited to identical products. Consequently, the benefit of the notification was deemed available to the Respondents, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues:
Rectification of mistake in the final order regarding the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. based on the use of a brand name on different products.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal considered an application for the Rectification of Mistake in Final Order No. 1210/98-C, dated 27-11-98, concerning the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The Revenue's appeal was rejected initially based on the use of a brand name on different products. The Revenue argued that the benefit of the notification should not be available if a manufacturer affixes the brand name on a product different from the brand name owner's products, citing relevant case laws from the Madras High Court. The Tribunal noted the Madras High Court's decisions but found a mistake in the final order, as it was held that using a brand name on different products should not disentitle the manufacturer from the benefit of the notification.

Counterarguments were presented by the Respondent's Advocate, emphasizing that the brand name was registered for specific goods by the brand name owner, while the Respondent manufactured different products like washing powder and laundry soap. The Advocate relied on a Supreme Court decision to support the argument that using the same brand name for different goods should not automatically disqualify the manufacturer from availing benefits. It was highlighted that the Respondents were the owners of the brand name for their products, which included washing powder and laundry soap.

After considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal referred to the Madras High Court's decision in Bell Products case, which clarified that Notification No. 175/86 did not require the brand name to be affixed to similar or identical goods. The Tribunal acknowledged the mistake in the initial order and clarified that the Respondents, who had acquired common partnership in the trade name "T Series" for their products, were considered the owners of the brand name themselves. As a result, affixing their own brand name did not fall under the restriction of the notification's Para 7, and the benefit of the notification was deemed available to the Respondents. Consequently, the application for rectification of mistake was allowed, but the Revenue's appeal remained rejected.

---