Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
M/S. Meet Electronics vs Cce, Meerut on 2 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(133)ELT485(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
G.R.Sharma The authorities below denied the appellants the benefit of Notification No.175/86 on the ground that the appellant was using the brand name of some foreign company and since the appellant was using the brand name "Meet National" on the products manufactured by them, they were not entitled to the benefit of exemption/concessional rate of duty under Notification No.175/86 dt.1.3.86 and hence the appeal before us.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Radio Cassettee-Recorder. The appellant affixed "Meet National" on their product. This was declared by them in the classification list in which they claimed the benefit of Notification No.175/86 dt.28.2.86. The Asstt. Collector while adjudicating the case held that the benefit of Notification No.175/86 was not availabe on branded goods manufactured by Small Scale Unit in India as 'Meet National' was nothing but an extended form of brand name 'National' the owner of which was not eligible to avail the benefit. in terms of para 7 of Notification No.175/86. On appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), the Ld. Commissioner held "7. I am unable to accept the contention of the appellants because brand name "Meet National' is nothing but it is another odel of brand 'National'. As such as the owner of brand name "National" is not eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of duty, therefore, the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No.175/86. He rejected the appeal of the appellant".
3. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri R.S.Pandey, Ld. Consultant submitted that their case is fully covered by the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Vikram International vs CCE, Meerut reported in 2000(126)ELT.1110. He submitted that this Tribunal in para 4&6 held "4. For the purpose of this para, brand name or trade name was to mean a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say, a name or a mark such as, symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented words 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".
"6. In the case before us, however, there are no such findings of facts arrived at by the lower authorities. The use of the words 'Vikram Sony' or Vikram National' as fixed on the goods per se would not identify them to the buyers, with the goods of the foreign companies owners of the trade name, 'National' or 'Sony'. The Ld. Advocate of the appellants relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Rotex Manufacturers & Engg. P.Ltd. v. CCE Mumbai-III - 2000(115)ELT.492(T). In this case the goods namely Solenoid valves and spares were cleared by the manufacturers by affixing the brand name "SEITZ ROTEX" with monogram SIETZ, SEMPRESS and ROTEX. The words SEMPRESS and ROTEX were stated to be belonging to the foreign collaborators and therefore their use in relation to the goods was considered by the department indicating a relationship between the goods of the Indian manufacturers with that of the foreign company. The Tribunal however observed that the use of the words "Sempress Rotex" and "Seitz Rotex" cannot mean that the words can have any relationship with any trademark indicating that the quality of the product is assured because the trademark is owned by the foreign company. In the present case also the use of the words "Vikram Sony" or "Vikram National" on the specified goods cannot in itself considered to be indicating a relationship of such goods with the foreign companies owning the brand names "SONY" and 'NATIONAL" so as to deny the S.S.I. exemption to the appellants".
He submitted that further this Tribunal in the case of CCE, Goa vs Christine Hoden(I) Pvt. reported in 1999(113)ELT.591 in para 4.1 held as under:
"4.1. We have seen the labels in both the cases. WE are unable to accept this plea of the Revenue. Trade name "Comfit" or "Comfit Always" in the two cases are owned by the respondents. This finding has not been rebutted by the Revenue. Mere indication of the foreign company's name does not create any association in the course of trade between the goods and the foreign company, as urged by the Revenue. Therefore, we do not find any substance in Revenue's appeals. Consequently, we dismiss the same".
Ld. Consultant submits that a perusal of the above orders will show that the ratio of the decisions of the Tribunal in these two cases squarely covers their case. He, therefore, submits that following the ratio of the decisions of the Tribunal in these cases, the appeal may be allowed.
4. Shri Prabhat Kumar, Ld. SDR appearing for the respondent Commissioner submits that the fact remains that the expression used in the marking on the products is a brand name and since it was a brand name, therefore, the benefit of Notification No.175/86 was not available to the assessee. He reiterated the findings of the authorities below.
5. We have heard the rival submissions. We have also perused the case law cited by the appellant. We note that the very same issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Vikram International cited(supra). The Tribunal after examining the decision of the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Namtech Systems Ltd. vs CCE, New Delhi reported in 2000(115)ELT.238 held that the benefit of Notification No.175/86-CE cannot be denied to the appellant. We further note that 'Meet National' is not a registered trade name of anybody else. Following the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Vikram International, we hold that the benefit of Notification No.175/86 will be available to the appellants. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the above terms. Consequential relief, if any, shall be admissible to the appellants in accordance with law.