2004 (5) TMI 165 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Denial of exemption benefit due to the use of a trade name belonging to another company.
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC prior to its promulgation.
3. Interpretation of house marks as different from trade marks and suppression of facts by the appellant.

Issue 1: The appellant's exemption benefit was denied as they used a trade name belonging to another company, Voltarc Electrodes Pvt. Ltd., engaged in manufacturing welding electrodes under the brand name 'VOLTARC'. The Commissioner confirmed duty due to the alleged suppression of using the trade name 'VOLTARC' during the relevant period. The Revenue also filed an appeal on this ground.

Issue 2: The Revenue's appeal seeking enhancement of penalty under Section 11AC was rejected as the Apex Court had previously held that such penalty prior to 28-8-1996 was not imposable. The issue was considered settled by the Apex Court, and hence, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Issue 3: The appellant contended that the house marks of both companies, Voltarc India Pvt. Ltd. and Voltarc Electrodes Pvt. Ltd., were different. They argued that the marks were not identical and were house marks, not trade marks. The appellant provided evidence showing the differences in the house marks, emphasizing that the name 'VOLTARC' was only a company name and not a brand name. They claimed that all relevant facts were disclosed to the Department and that the demands were time-barred. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, found that the house marks were indeed different, not affixed on the goods, and were in the nature of house marks, not trade marks. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had not suppressed any facts to avail the benefit of the notification. The judgments cited by the appellant supported their case, and based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowed the appellant's appeal, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal based on the interpretation of house marks, the absence of suppression of facts, and the applicability of relevant judgments.