Brand-name exclusion under exemption notification applied to mixer/grinder goods bearing another person's mark, despite narrower registration wording.

Brand-name exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where mixer/grinder goods bore another person's brand name and the goods were treated as electrical household equipment within the relevant class. The Tribunal relied on the notification's brand-name exclusion and held that the mark "MITASO" was used in the same style by the assessee on the goods, with admission that it belonged to M/s. Mitaso Appliances Ltd. The fact that the trademark registration wording was narrower did not take mixer/grinder outside the class, because HSN Notes under Heading 85.09 described domestic appliances to include mixer/grinder. The Revenue's challenge succeeded and the exemption was denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. when it affixed the brand name of another person on mixer/grinder goods, and whether mixer/grinder fell within the class of electrical household equipment for the purpose of the notification.

Analysis: Paragraph 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. denies exemption where specified goods bear the brand name or trade name of another person who is not eligible for the exemption. The brand name "MITASO" was found to have been used in the same style and fashion by M/s. Mitaso Appliances Ltd. on mixer/grinder goods, and the director of the respondent itself admitted that the brand name used on the product belonged to M/s. Mitaso Appliances Ltd. The contention that the mark had not been registered for mixer/grinder was rejected because mixer/grinder was treated as an electrical household equipment. The Tribunal also relied on HSN Notes under Heading 85.09, which described domestic appliances to include mixer/grinder, and held that the goods could not be placed outside the relevant class merely because the trademark registration was expressed in different wording. The reference to Schedule 4 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959 did not assist the assessee, as the goods listed there were of a different kind.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the exemption, and the brand-name bar under the notification applied against it.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge succeeded, the exemption was held unavailable, and the order dropping the proceedings was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: For the brand-name exclusion under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., a manufacturer cannot claim exemption where the specified goods are marketable as the same class of goods and bear another person's brand name, even if the precise registration wording is narrower, when the goods are in substance covered by that class.

---