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>Brand name usage criteria under excise duty notification clarified by Supreme Court decision.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-I Versus MAHAAN DAIRIES</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDIGARH-I Versus MAHAAN DAIRIES - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 23 (SC) , 2004 (11) SCC 798 Issues:Whether the respondents are entitled to exemption under Notification No. 8/98-C.E. dated 2nd June, 1998 for excise duty payment based on the use of a brand name or trade name.Analysis:The case revolved around the interpretation of Notification No. 8/98-C.E., which granted exemption from excise duty for certain goods unless they bore a brand name or trade name of another person. The key issue was whether the respondents, part of a group of companies, had used the brand name of a different company. The registered trade mark 'Mahaan' was used by M/s. Mahaan Foods Ltd., and the respondents sold pickle with the same name in a similar style, albeit with the addition of 'Taste Maker.' The authorities determined that selling pickle with only the company's name did not disqualify them from the exemption, but using the registered brand name did.The Supreme Court referred to a previous judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders, where it was established that using a trade name or brand name of another company, regardless of the goods, would disqualify the benefit of the Notification. The addition of extra words to the brand name did not enable the party to claim the exemption. This interpretation was supported by a decision in the case of Festo Controls (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with the terms of the Notification was necessary to claim its benefits, and stretching or adding words to the Notification for benefit was impermissible.The Court dismissed the argument that the respondents had applied for the registration of the mark 'Mahaan Taste Maker,' clarifying that only upon registration would they be entitled to the Notification's benefits as per Board's Circular No. 88/88. The Tribunal's decision was deemed unsustainable and set aside. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs.
TaxTMI 