Dispute over Brand Name Exemption in Excise Case

The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) held that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 due to affixing goods with a brand name belonging to another person. However, the Tribunal determined that the use of the brand name did not disentitle the appellants from the exemption as the goods were traded under a different name. As the marketing agency did not manufacture the goods or hold a brand name, the appellants were deemed eligible for the exemption. Despite differing opinions, the majority decision led to the rejection of the appeal.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86.
2. Definition and applicability of "brand name" or "trade name" u/s Notification No. 175/86.
3. Eligibility of the marketing agency for the exemption.

Summary:

Entitlement to the Benefit of Notification No. 175/86:
The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) upheld the Revenue's contention that the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 as they affixed the trade name/brand name "Synthico" belonging to M/s. Synthiko Formulations on their products. The Collector reasoned that affixing goods with the brand name or trade name of another person, who is not eligible for the said exemption, disentitles the assessee from the benefit of Notification No. 175/86.

Definition and Applicability of "Brand Name" or "Trade Name" u/s Notification No. 175/86:
The Tribunal examined whether the word "Synthico" constitutes a brand name or trade name. The definition u/s Notification No. 175/86 includes any name or mark used to indicate a connection between the goods and the person using such name or mark. The Tribunal found that the marketing agency, M/s. Synthiko Formulations, was not a manufacturer and did not hold any L-4 license. Therefore, the use of "Synthico" did not make the appellants disentitled to the exemption, as the goods were traded under the name "Brosmin tablet" and not "Synthico."

Eligibility of the Marketing Agency for the Exemption:
The Tribunal noted that M/s. Synthiko Formulations, being a marketing agency, did not qualify as "another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption" as per para 7 of the notification. Since M/s. Synthiko Formulations did not manufacture the specified goods nor held a brand name or trade name, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the exemption.

Separate Judgment by Judges:
Member (Judicial) S.L. Peeran concluded that the appellants are entitled to the exemption, while Member (Technical) P.C. Jain disagreed, arguing that "Synthico" is a brand name of another person, thus disqualifying the appellants from the exemption. The Vice President, Harish Chander, agreed with the Technical Member, concluding that the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 is not available to the goods under consideration.

Final Order:
In view of the majority opinion, the appeal was rejected.

---