2012 (10) TMI 694 - AT - Central Excise

Appellant entitled to concessional duty under Central Excise Rules based on valid brand name ownership.

M/s Que Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Rajkot

M/s Que Pharma Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Rajkot - 2013 (288) E.L.T. 563 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues:- Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Notification No.1/1993 under Central Excise Rules, 1944.- Whether the brand name Que used by the appellant is valid for claiming the concessional rate of duty.- Whether the assignment of the brand name from a partnership firm to the current appellant is legally valid.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged the denial of the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.1/1993 to the appellant, who was engaged in manufacturing excisable goods. The issue arose when the Revenue authorities alleged that the appellant incorrectly availed the benefit by not clubbing the clearances of two units, leading to the demand of differential duties.2. The main contention revolved around the usage of the brand name Que by both the units and whether it was legally valid for the appellant to claim the concessional rate. The first appellate authority upheld the denial of benefit, citing that both units were using the same brand name for manufacturing and selling the same product.3. The appellant argued that the brand name Que was assigned to them by a partnership firm through a deed of assignment, thereby making them the rightful owner of the brand. The appellant relied on legal precedents such as the case of Jepika Paints to support their claim regarding the assignment of the trade name not covered under Notification No.1/1993.4. Upon examining the assignment deed, the Tribunal found that the partnership firm relinquished its rights to the brand name Que in favor of the appellant. The deed clearly stated that the partnership firm had no further claim to the brand name from a specified date, making the appellant the absolute owner of the brand for manufacturing the assigned products.5. The Tribunal referred to legal provisions regarding the assignment and registration of trade marks to establish the validity of the brand name transfer. Citing precedents like Vikshara Trading & Invest Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the Notification No.1/1993 based on the legal transfer of the brand name.6. In light of the evidence and legal arguments presented, the Tribunal held that the impugned order denying the benefit of the concessional rate of duty to the appellant was unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellant based on the legal ownership of the brand name Que as established through the assignment deed.