2000 (5) TMI 1038 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal Upholds Denial of Exemption for Unauthorized Brand Use

SAROJ ENGG. UDYOG (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE

SAROJ ENGG. UDYOG (P) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE - 2007 (220) E.L.T. 127 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:1. Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for goods manufactured under a trade name belonging to another person.2. Validity of the decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) reversing the Order-in-Original of the Assistant Collector.3. Appeal filed by the appellants challenging the decision of the Collector (Appeals).Issue 1: Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.:The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal that reversed the Order-in-Original, denying the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. to the appellants for goods manufactured under the trade name of another person. The appellants were manufacturing hardness testing machines under Chapter Heading 9024.00 and affixing the brand name 'Blue Star,' which belonged to an ineligible person. The Revenue challenged the decision of the Assistant Collector, leading to the Commissioner (Appeals) reversing the order and denying the exemption. The Tribunal referred to a Larger Bench decision in Namtech Systems v. CCE, clarifying that the benefit of exemption would not apply if goods were affixed with a brand name of an ineligible person. Since the appellants were affixing the brand name 'Blue Star,' owned by an ineligible entity, they were not eligible for the exemption, as per para 7 of the notification.Issue 2: Validity of the decision of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals):The Collector (Appeals) had denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. to the appellants, a decision that was upheld by the Tribunal. The appellants failed to prove that they were manufacturing goods under their own name 'Saroj Hardness Tester' and not under the brand name of an ineligible person. The Tribunal found that the appellants were indeed affixing the brand name 'Blue Star,' which did not belong to them but to M/s. Blue Star Bombay Company. As per the Tribunal's analysis, the appellants could not legally claim the exemption for the disputed period while affixing the brand name of an ineligible entity. Therefore, the decision of the Collector (Appeals) to deny the benefit of the notification was deemed valid and affirmed by the Tribunal.Issue 3: Appeal filed by the appellants:The appellants filed an appeal before the Tribunal challenging the decision of the Collector (Appeals). However, during the proceedings, none appeared on behalf of the appellants. Despite multiple requests for adjournment, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the case on its merits. The absence of the appellants' representative during the hearing led the Tribunal to dismiss the appeal due to the lack of merit. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants were affixing the brand name of an ineligible person on their goods, making them ineligible for the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The appeal was dismissed based on the findings and the legal position established by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in a similar case.---