2005 (8) TMI 115 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the manufacturer is not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28th February, 1993?

Held that:- In our view, the Notification has to be interpreted in the context in which the words are used in the Notification. Context in which such words are used under the Trade Marks Act or under principle governing trade marks have no relevance for purposes of interpreting such a Notification.

Under these circumstances as we are shown a Circular of the Board dated 27th October, 1994 which clearly gives an interpretation as canvassed before us by Mr. Sridharan. Before this Court there is a divergence of opinion whether such Circulars prevail over Judgments of this Court. This question has been referred to a Constitution Bench by a Judgment in the case of Commissioner of C. Ex., Bolpur v. Ratan Melting & Wire Industries reported [2005 (2) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. We, therefore, after giving the above finding, tag these matters with the cases before the Constitution Bench. We clarify that this is only for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Circular would prevail or the Judgment of this Court would prevail. If, ultimately it is held by the Constitution Bench that Judgments of this Court prevail, then Civil Appeal No. 3197 of 2000 will stand dismissed and Civil Appeal No. 1469 of 2002 will stand allowed without any further Orders. If, however, the Constitution Bench takes a contrary opinion, then of course, the reverse will follow. In either case there will be no order as to costs.