Final Order No. 1210/98-C arising from in Appeal No. 707/93-C. Case: Collector of Central Excise, Meerut Vs Gopal Soap Industries. Central Information Commission

Case Number:Final Order No. 1210/98-C arising from in Appeal No. 707/93-C
Party Name:Collector of Central Excise, Meerut Vs Gopal Soap Industries
Counsel:For Appellant: Shri Satnam Singh, SDR and For Respondents: Shri V. Sridharan, Advocate.
Judges:Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) and Shri V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
Issue:Central Excise Act
Citation:1999 (111) ELT 876 (Tribunal)
Judgement Date:November 27, 1998
Court:Central Information Commission
 
FREE EXCERPT

Order:

V.K. Agrawal, Member (T), (New Delhi)

  1. The issue involved in the appeal filed by the Revenue is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 is available to M/s. Gopal Soap Industries selling their product under brand name "T-Series".

  2. Shri Satnam Singh, learned SDR submitted that M/s. Gopal Soap Industries manufacture Washing Powder which was sold by them under brand name "T-Series". Accordingly, the Asstt. Collector in the adjudication order dated 26-9-1989 denied them the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 as the brand name "T-Series" belonged to M/s. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. who were not eligible to avail the benefit of the said notification. However, on appeal, the Collector (Appeals) in the impugned order set aside the adjudication order holding that the trade mark need not necessarily be in respect of all goods unless the registration has been so acquired that it is quite possible and permissible to have the same brand name for the different classes of goods owned by different persons. The Collector (Appeals) had relied upon the decision in the case of Nestle''s Products Ltd. v. Milkmade Corporation, reported in AIR 1974 Delhi 40. The Collector (Appeals) also observed that brand name was registered in the name of M/s. Super Cassette Industries for the manufacture of electronic goods whereas the respondent were using the same in respect of Washing Powder and accordingly the brand name cannot be treated as brand name of M/s. Super Cassette Industries. The learned SDR further submitted that the respondents entered into an agreement with M/s. Super Cassette Industries for use of the brand name "T-Series" on payment of Rs. 25,000/-; that this goes to show that the brand name belonged to M/s. Super Cassette Industries. He further contended that the respondents did not get the brand name registered for their products as they had borrowed it from M/s. Super Cassette Industries Ltd. The products manufactured by both brand owner and the respondents being different does not mean that the products manufactured by the respondents are not sold under the brand name of another person who is not eligible to avail the benefit of Notification No. 175/86. He also mentioned that the reliance of the Collector (Appeals) on the Board''s Circular No. 213/41/88-C.Ex., dated 30-12-1988 is not correct since the facts mentioned therein were different from the present matter, that clarification given by the Board suggests that when a common...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL