Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Cce vs Ace Auto Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 10 October, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(106)ECR280(TRI.-DELHI)
ORDER V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
1. In this Appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the excisable goods manufactured by M/s. Ace Auto Co. Pvt. Ltd. were bearing brand name of another persons making them ineligible for the benefit of small scale exemption.
2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents nor there was any request for adjourned in-spite of notice. We, further, observe that when the matter was posted for hearing on the last occasion on 22.7.2002, none has appeared on respondents' behalf. We also observe that the respondents have filed under their letter dated 5.9.2002 Cross Objection for consideration by the Tribunal. In view of this we take up the Appeal for disposal after hearing Shri Jagdish Singh, learned Departmental Representative, and perusing the records.
3. Shri Jagdish Singh, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that the respondents manufactured clutche plates, clutche cover assemblies and pressure plates which are embossed with symbol and logo "Tata" along with their own brand name "ACE"; that the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise under Order No. 6/99-2000 dated 3.6.1999 denied the benefit of exemption from payment under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. dated 28.2.1993 and 16/97 CE on the ground that the goods were bearing brand name of another person and any person buying the impugned product would naturally assume the product to have the quality specification etc. associated with products of Tata' groups; that however, on Appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Adjudication Order holding that two conflicting names are TATA and "TATA ACE" and the sole reason for this usage of the name "TATA" is that it stands earmarked for particular vehicle." Learned Departmental Representative, further, submitted that TATA is not a merely one company but a group of companies and each such company is entitled to use brand name "TATA"; that the impression in the minds of the consumer is that the product bearing name "TATA" has been manufactured by some of the TATA group company; that, therefore, if some addition to the brand name "TATA" is embossed on a particular product, it indicates connection between the product and the TATA group of Companies in the course of normal trade; that it is apparent from the definition of the brand name given - in the relevant notification; that the main question is not that the party has used a slightly different name but is that what impression it would create; that in the present matter, there is no dispute about the fact that the brand name "TATA" is embossed on the impugned goods manufactured by the respondents creates the impression that the same are manufactured by one of the TATA group of companies. The learned Departmental Representative also relied upon the decision in the case of Ace Metal Company v. CCE, Chandigarh 2001 (135) ELT 616 (Tri) wherein it was held that putting "R" within circle after the brand name does make it a different or distinguished brand/trade name.
4. The respondents in their cross objections have submitted that it has been accepted by the Revenue that the products manufactured by them were embossed by the symbol and logo words TATA ACE' and not Tata' alone; that it is a loose and unassembled assumption put forth by the Revenue that TATA ACE' can be the name of TATA' Company and same can be mistaken by Telco brand; that the brand name used by them indicated beyond doubt that it is a product of their company which is different from TATA' group of Companies; that the word TATA' in combination with 'ACE' has been mentioned to indicate its use only with TATA 310' vehicle and to avoid its use in other vehicles. They have, further, submitted that the brand name used by them has the words 'ACE' and since it is used in conjunction or along with the name TATA' it becomes the different name and, therefore, it cannot be said to be brand names of TELCO; that it has been held in the case of CCE Hem Paints Put. Ltd. 2001 (44) RLT 698 that the use of brand name which does not belong to any one does not amount to contravention of Para 4 of Notification No. 1/93. They have also placed reliance on the decision in the case of CCE v. Mahaan Dairies 2001 (44) RLT 727 : 2001 (97) ECR 185 (T) in which case the respondents used the brand name "Mahan Taste Maker" on pickles manufactured by them and it was held by the Tribunal that the benefit of Notification is available as the brand name Mahan Taste Maker is different from the 'Mahan' belonging to Mahan Foods Ltd. The reliance has also been placed on the following two decisions:
(1) Meet Electronics v. CCE, Meerut 2001 (44) RLT 597. (2) AGI Switches Put. Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi . (3) CCE, Goa v. Christine Hoden (I) Put. Ltd. . (4) Rotex Manufacturers and Engg. Put. Ltd. v. CCE .
5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. It is admitted by both the sides that the products manufactured by the respondents bear the brand name Tata Ace' and not only Tata'. The benefit of SSI Notification is not available to a small scale unit if the goods manufactured by it bear the brand name or trade name of another name. According to the Explanation to the Notification brand name or trade name means a brand name or trade name whether registered or not, that is to say a name or mark, such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented words or writing which is used in relation to specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the specified goods and some persons using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identify of that person. The case of the Department is that by using the name Tata' with its brand name 'Ace', the respondents are falling within the mischief of Para 4 of the Notification No. 1/93 and as such are not eligible for the exemption. The Revenue has contended that the brand name used by the respondents would create an impression in the minds of the consumers that the particular product has been manufactured by some of the Tata' Group of Companies. The argument put forthwith by the Revenue seems attractive but it does not fall within the purview of Para 4 of the Notification No. 1/93 or 16/97. According to the Notification, exemption shall not apply if the specified goods are bearing the brand name of another person. It is not the case of the Revenue that "Tata Ace" is the brand name of another person. The very fact that there is no material to prove that the brand name, which the excisable goods manufactured by the respondents bear, belongs to another person, the mischief of Para 4 of the Notification No. 1/93 will not be attracted. The decision in the case of Ace Metal Company is not applicable to the facts of the present matter inasmuch the word "R" within a circle [(r)] was put in addition to the brand name of another person and the Tribunal observed that the word CD is international abbreviation for denoting registered trade mark. The respondents have relied upon decision in the case of Mahaan Dairies Pvt. Ltd. wherein it was held that the brand name of 'Mahan Taste Maker' is different from 'Mahan' which is the brand name of Mahan Foods Ltd. Similar views were held by the Appellate Tribunal in the case of Meet Electronics (supra) where the Appellants were manufacturing Radio Cassettes Recorders and affixing the brand name 'Meet National'. The Tribunal has held that the 'Meet National' is not a registered trade name of anybody else and allowed the benefit of the Notification No. 175/86. We also find substance in the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the usage of the name Tata' in the brand name is with a view to indicate that the part is for a particular vehicle manufactured by Tata. Following the ratio of the above mentioned decision, we find no infirmity in the impugned Order and accordingly we reject the Appeal filed by the Revenue. The Cross Objections filed by the Respondents also stand disposed of as no other plea has been made therein.