2001 (4) TMI 404 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal rules in favor of unit, deems 'Mahaan TASTEMAKER' distinct from 'Mahaan'

The Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, ruling that the brand name 'Mahaan TASTEMAKER' used by the unit was distinct from 'Mahaan' ... Use of another's brand name - eligibility for SSI exemption - trade mark registration across different classes - use of monogram as indicia of connection - precedential value of Tribunal decisions pending appealUse of another's brand name - eligibility for SSI exemption - trade mark registration across different classes - The pickles marketed under the label 'Mahaan TASTEMAKER' were not use of another person's brand and were eligible for SSI exemption under the Notifications relied upon. - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal found as a fact that the respondents used the brand name 'Mahaan TASTEMAKER' on pickles, a product different from those for which 'Mahaan' was registered in favour of M/s. MFL. The respondents had applied for registration of 'Mahaan TASTEMAKER' prior to the dispute and had declared its use to the department. The Board's Circular dated 30-12-1988 permits the same or similar brand names to be used for different classes of goods by different persons; consequently, the mere presence of the word 'Mahaan' on the respondents' pickles did not establish that the brand belonged to M/s. MFL or that the product indicated a connection with M/s. MFL. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's contention that 'TASTEMAKER' was merely a synonym for 'pickle' and held that 'TASTEMAKER' formed part of the composite brand 'Mahaan TASTEMAKER', which is distinct from 'Mahaan'. Reliance upon the Tribunal's precedents (including Rukmani Packwell Traders and Khanna Industries) supported the view that marks used on different goods may be distinct for the purposes of Notification eligibility. On these grounds, the adjudicating authority's denial of the Notifications' benefit was set aside and the Commissioner (Appeals) order upholding exemption was affirmed. [Paras 7, 8]Pickles sold under 'Mahaan TASTEMAKER' are not use of another's brand and are eligible for the SSI exemption Notifications; the Commissioner (Appeals) order is upheld and Revenue's appeals rejected.Use of monogram as indicia of connection - use of another's brand name - The use of a similar or same monogram on containers of different products did not establish that the respondents were using another person's brand for pickles. - HELD THAT: - Although the same invented letter 'M' appeared on labels for both ghee and pickles, the Tribunal observed that the monogram was not a registered trade mark in favour of either party and that visual similarity alone, in the context of different goods and the admitted facts about registration and declarations, did not prove that the pickles bore another's brand. Given that the branded goods were of different classes and that the respondents had asserted and demonstrated use of their own composite brand, the monogram's presence was insufficient to deny Notification benefits. [Paras 3, 7]Similarity of monogram did not establish use of another's brand; monogram usage did not defeat entitlement to exemption.Final Conclusion: The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) finding that pickles cleared under the respondents' brand 'Mahaan TASTEMAKER' during the disputed periods were manufactured and sold under the respondents' own brand and were eligible for SSI exemption under the Notifications; the Revenue's demands were therefore dismissed. Issues:1. Interpretation of brand name usage for duty liability on branded pickles.2. Application of SSI exemption Notifications on branded pickles.3. Differentiation of brand names for duty exemption eligibility.Analysis:1. The case involved a dispute regarding the duty liability on branded pickles manufactured by an SSI unit. The department alleged that the brand name 'Mahaan TASTEMAKER' used by the unit belonged to another entity, impacting the duty exemption eligibility. The lower appellate authority ruled in favor of the unit, stating that the brand name used was distinct and eligible for duty exemption under relevant Notifications.2. The main contention of the Revenue was that the brand name 'Mahaan TASTEMAKER' belonged to a different entity, M/s. MFL. The Revenue argued that the unit admitted to this fact and interchangeably used the same monogram for pure ghee and pickles. Additionally, the Revenue challenged the reliance on a previous Tribunal decision and a Board Circular by the lower appellate authority.3. Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the brand name 'Mahaan' was registered for specific food products by M/s. MFL, different from the pickles produced by the unit. The Tribunal noted that the application for the brand name 'Mahaan TASTEMAKER' was made before the dispute period, and the unit declared its usage to the department. The Tribunal concluded that the brand names were distinct, and the pickles qualified for SSI exemption under the Notifications.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, ruling that the brand name 'Mahaan TASTEMAKER' used by the unit was separate from 'Mahaan' belonging to M/s. MFL. Therefore, the pickles cleared by the unit during the dispute period were eligible for duty exemption under the relevant Notifications. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed, affirming the lower appellate authority's order.