TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atements and other relied upon documents to the effect that these brand names/trade names were belonging to SRCPL and Farmax. The Appellants reliance on the case law cited is not relevant. In the case of COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD IV VERSUS M/S. STANGEN IMMUNO DIAGNOSTICS [ 2015 (6) TMI 155 - SUPREME COURT] , the issue in the said case was whether two different parties were using the same trademark and logo simultaneously in their own rights, which is not the case here as it is clearly the case where the Appellant has failed to prove that they were the owners of the brand name/trade name of STOP and TODAY . The Hon ble Supreme Court observed that the Assessee, in this case, is using brand name as the owner thereof itself, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls falling under Chapter Sub-heading No.3808.00 of the Central Excise Tariff. Based on investigation conducted by the Anti-Evasion Wing of Hyderabad-I Commissionerate, it was noticed that the Appellants were engaged in manufacture and supply of mosquito coils to one M/s Sree Ramcides Chemicals Pvt Ltd (SRCPL) and M/s Farmax Health and Food Products Pvt Ltd (Farmax). These mosquito coils were being cleared under the name STOP for SRCPL and under the name TODAY for Farmax. 2. It also appeared to the department that the exemption benefit under Notification No.08/2003-CE dt.01.03.2003, which was being claimed by the Appellant, was not correct as they were not meeting the condition No.4 of the said notification. The condition No.4 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the Order passed by the Original Authority by way of rejection of Appeal filed by the Appellant. However, the Appeal filed by Mr. G.N.V. Satish partner of the Appellant was allowed. 4. The Appellant is in Appeal against the Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Since no one is appearing on behalf of the Appellant on many occasions, the Bench appointed Mr. P. Sai Makrandh as amicus curie, on behalf of the Appellant. 5. Amicus curie has taken us through the genesis of the case and the issues involved. His main argument is that the denial of the exemption is possible only when goods manufactured by the Appellant bearing a brand name or trade name, belongs to another person. Therefore, in order to den ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner (Appeals) and has relied on case law CCE, Trichy vs Rukmani Pakkwell Traders [2004 (165) ELT 481 (SC)], in support of their contention that in the given factual matrix of the case, where there is admittedly, a owner of the registered trademark, the benefit is not available to the Appellants. 7. Heard the parties and perused the records. 8. The main issue which needs to be decided is whether the Appellants were clearing the goods under the brand name of another person or otherwise. Admittedly, the Appellants were manufacturing mosquito coils, which were being cleared to two parties viz., SRCPL Farmax, in terms of Agreement entered between the Appellant and SRCPL/Farmax. It is not disputed that the goods were being manufactured b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark would be brand name/trade name for the purpose of this notification. 10. Thus, in the absence of the Appellant s providing any evidence that they were the brand name owners, irrespective of the fact that whether it was registered in their name or not and the market s perception that brand name belonged to somebody else, it is not possible to consider that it did not belong to others. In fact, in this case, sufficient evidence is on record by way of statements and other relied upon documents to the effect that these brand names/trade names were belonging to SRCPL and Farmax. 11. The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone into details before coming to the conclusi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name or mark and therefore, in order to qualify as brand name or trade name , it has to be established that such mark, symbol, design or name, etc., has acquired the reputation of the nature that one is able to associate the said mark with the manufacturer. 12. In this case, as rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), there is sufficient evidence to clearly establish that brand name or trade name belonged to other persons viz., SRCPL/Farmax and not to the Appellant. Further, there is nothing on record to establish that the Appellants were perceived to be the brand name owner for STOP and TODAY in the market. 13. Therefore, the Order of Commissioner (Appeals) is based on correct appreciation of facts and legal provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
