TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal upholds exemption for units owning brand name 'Kesavardhini' under Notification No. 140/83</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI Versus KESAVARDHINI PRODUCTS</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI Versus KESAVARDHINI PRODUCTS - 2006 (198) E.L.T. 146 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues:Appeal against Order-in-Appeal denying exemption under Notification No. 140/83 for two units using the same brand name.Analysis:The case involved an appeal against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 36 & 37/98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai, regarding two units manufacturing Kesavardhini hair oil using the same brand name. The original authority noted that both units were owned by different proprietors but used the brand name 'Kesavardhini' and availed exemption under Notification No. 140/83. The Revenue challenged this, arguing that when a brand is owned by two different entities, none are entitled to exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order, leading the Revenue to appeal to the Tribunal.The Tribunal considered the arguments presented, including the contention that each owner of the brand name should be entitled to exemption, citing relevant case laws. Reference was made to a Supreme Court case emphasizing that using one's own company name for products does not disentitle one from claiming exemption. In this case, both manufacturers were recognized by the Trade Mark Registrar as owners of the brand name 'Kesavardhini,' making them eligible for exemption. The Tribunal analyzed the condition of Notification No. 140/83, which states that exemption does not apply to goods bearing a brand name of another person. Since each unit operated in different areas and owned the brand name through registration, the Tribunal concluded that the condition of the notification was fulfilled. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, finding no merit in their arguments.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored the respondents, holding that each unit owning the brand name 'Kesavardhini' through registration met the conditions of the exemption notification, thereby dismissing the Revenue's appeal against the denial of exemption for the two units using the same brand name.
TaxTMI 