1995 (5) TMI 168 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of brand name under Notification No. 175/86 for small scale exemption.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the revenue against the orders of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Guntur, regarding the eligibility of small scale exemption for voltage stabilizers manufactured by M/s. Technics India bearing the brand name 'autostab' and the imprint 'APEL.' The revenue contended that the imprint 'APEL' constituted a brand name of A.P. Electronics Dev. Corp. Ltd. (APEDCL), thus disqualifying the goods from the exemption under Notification No. 175/86. The dispute centered on whether the imprint 'APEL' indicated a connection between the goods and APEDCL, rendering it a brand name as per the notification's definition. The lower authority had ruled in favor of Technics India, stating that the imprint was merely to distinguish goods for APEDCL, not constituting a brand name. However, the Tribunal found that a deeper investigation was necessary to determine the nature of the connection implied by the imprint 'APEL' and whether APEDCL marketed goods with this imprint. It was noted that Technics India manufactured goods at APEDCL's premises as per tender conditions, making the imprint unnecessary for differentiation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the lower authority's decision, remanding the matter for a fresh determination based on the observations made.

This case hinged on the interpretation of 'brand name' under Notification No. 175/86 for small scale exemption eligibility. The Tribunal scrutinized whether the imprint 'APEL' on voltage stabilizers manufactured by Technics India constituted a brand name of APEDCL, thereby affecting the exemption. The Tribunal emphasized the broad definition of 'brand name' in the notification, requiring a connection indication in the course of trade between the goods and the person using the name or mark. It was crucial to establish whether the imprint 'APEL' implied such a connection with APEDCL in the market. The Tribunal found that the lower authority had not delved deep enough into this aspect and had accepted assertions without thorough investigation. The Tribunal highlighted that Technics India's manufacturing arrangement with APEDCL made the imprint redundant for identification purposes, suggesting a deliberate act by APEDCL. As a result, the Tribunal ruled that the lower authority's decision lacked proper examination and legal basis, necessitating a fresh determination after providing the respondents with a hearing opportunity.