TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 330X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction is conveyed in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using the mark. See Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy Vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders [2004 (2) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I, Vs. Mahaan Dairies[2004 (2) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein held that once it is established that a specified good is a branded good, whether it is sold without any trade name on it, or by another manufacturer, it does not cease to be a branded good of the first manufacturer. The good will continue to be a branded good of the company that manufactured it. In case of goods sold from exclusive single brand retail outlets or restaurants or stores, the fact that a good is sold from such a store ought to be a relevant fact in construing if the good is its branded good or not. In the case of such goods, perhaps a rebuttable presumption arises in favour of such goods being branded goods of the specified store. Such a presumption can be rebutted if it is shown that the specified good being sold is in fact a branded good of another manufacturer. However, all other goods, sold without any appearance of a brand or tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee ), revealed that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture and sale of cookies from branded retail outlets of Cookie Man . The assessee had acquired this brand name from M/s Cookie Man Pvt. Ltd, Australia (which in turn acquired it from M/s Auto- bake Pvt. Ltd., Australia). The brand name used the words Cookie Man accompanied with a logo depicting the smiling face of a mustachioed chef. The assessee was selling some of these cookies in plastic pouches/containers on which the brand name described above was printed. No brand name was affixed or inscribed on the cookies. Excise duty was duly paid, on the cookies sold in the said pouches/containers. However, on the cookies sold loosely from the counter of the same retail outlet, with plain plates and tissue paper, duty was not paid. 3. The retail outlets did not receive any loose cookies nor did they manufacture them. They received all cookies in sealed pouches/containers. Those sold loosely were taken out of the containers and displayed for sale separately. Even though no separate register was maintained to account for the sale of the cookies sold loosely, their numbers were calculated from the number of empty pouche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that is to say a name or a mark, such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person. 9. Para 4 of the said notification that deals with exemption for certain goods affixed with a brand name was amended vide notification No. 59/94- C.E. dated 1st March, 1994, to read:- 4. The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods, bearing a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person 10. Part (iii) of para J of the Budget Changes-1994-95 dealt with Changes in the SSI schemes explains the purpose of the amendment in the following words: (iii) Brand name provision has been amended so as to provide that SSI concession shall not apply to the goods bearing the brand name or trade name of another person. The effect of this amendment is that if an SSI unit manufactures the branded goods for another person irrespective of whether the brand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the above passage. The decision in the above case simply recognizes that the benefit would be lost only if a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand or trade name of another who is not eligible for the exemption under the notification. It does not state that the specified good must itself bear or be physically affixed with the brand or trade name. Such an interpretation would lead to absurd results in case of goods, which are incapable of physically bearing brand names. For instance, the goods, which, due to their very nature and structure, are incapable of bearing brand names, would always be deemed unbranded. Liquids, soft drinks, milk, dairy products, powders, edible products, salt, pepper, sweets, gaseous products, perfumes, deodorants etc., to name a few, are either liquids, gases or amorphous/brittle solids, making it impossible for the good to be affixed with a brand name. In some situations, such an affixation may be impossible, in which case, it would be permissible for the specified good to continue being a branded good, as long as its environment conveys that it is branded. By environment we mean packaging and wrapping of the good, accessories it is ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nection between the goods and a person. The framers were aware that goods may be manufactured on order for captive consumption by that customer and bear the brand/trade name of that customer. The framers were aware that such goods may not reach the market in the form in which they were supplied to the customer. The framers were aware that the customer may merely use such goods as an input for the goods manufactured by him. Yet clause 4 provides in categoric terms that the exemption is lost if the goods bear the brand/trade name of another. Clause 4 does not state that the exemption is lost only in respect of such goods as reach the market. It does not carve out an exception for goods manufactured for captive consumption. The framers meant what they provided. The exemption was to be available only to goods which did not bear a brand/trade name of another. The reason for this is obvious. If use of brand/trade names were to be permitted on goods manufactured as per the orders of customers or which are to be captively consumed then manufacturers, who are otherwise not entitled to exemption, would get their goods or some inputs manufactured on job-work basis or through some small par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued that the presence of P1 s brand name should not be taken as a basis for disqualification from the benefits of the exemption since the customer buying the good would continue to associate the good with P2 and not P1, thus making it a branded good of only P2. This Court rejected the contention and held that P1 is providing a stamped input for captive consumption to P2 because he wants the ultimate customer to know that there is a connection between the product and him . The Court further observed that the term specified goods is used without any caveats and hence rejected the contention that some consideration should be given to the fact that P1 was used only as an input in the making of the final product of P2. It is in this background that this Court observed that the requirement of the notifications must be adhered to strictly and cannot be diluted by substituting the term specified goods with the nature of goods or the manner of disposal. In case the specified good clearly exhibits a brand name of another not covered by the notification, it would squarely fall within the confines of Para 4 of the notification; looking beyond the specified good to consider whether it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... makes it very clear that even a use of part of a brand name or trade name, so long as it indicates a connection in the course of trade would be sufficient to disentitle the person from getting exemption under the notification. In this case, admittedly, the brand name or trade name is the word ARR with the photograph of the founder of the group. Merely because the registered trade mark is not entirely reproduced does not take the respondents out of clause 4 and make them eligible to the benefit of the notification. 16. Similarly, in Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I, Vs. Mahaan Dairies[(2004) 11 SCC 798], it was noted as follows: 6. We have today delivered a judgment in CCE v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders, (2004) 11 SCC 801 wherein we have held in respect of another notification containing identical words that it makes no difference whether the goods on which the trade name or mark is used are the same in respect of which the trade mark is registered. Even if the goods are different, so long as the trade name or brand name of some other company is used the benefit of the notification would not be available. Further, in our view, once a trade name or brand name is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered as branded goods under the SSI notification, discussed above. A scrutiny of the surrounding circumstances is not only permissible, but necessary to decipher the same; the most important of these factors being the specific outlet from which the good is sold. However, such factors would carry different hues in different scenarios. There can be no single formula to determine if a good is branded or not; such determination would vary from case to case. Also, our observations must be limited to this notification and not supplanted to other laws with similar subject matter pertaining to trade names and brand names. 20. Applying the said principles on the facts at hand, we fail to see how the same branded cookies, sold in containers, can transform to become unbranded ones, when sold from the same counter, or even from an adjoining counter, without packaging carrying the brand name. Admittedly, on the same cookies, physically bearing brand Cookie Man sold in containers carrying brand name duty is paid. It is interesting to note that learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee first argued that to determine if the cookies sold from the counter are branded or not, scruti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
