Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Crop Care Pesticides India Pvt. Ltd. vs Cce, Chandigarh on 23 March, 2001
ORDER
C.N.B. Nair
1. The appellants are manufacturers of Pesticides. They manufacture pesticides under their own brand name and 'Agr Evo, marketed by M/s.Hoechst Schering Agr Evo Ltd.
2. Appellants claimed benefit of exemption under Notification No.1/93 dated 28.2.93, including on goods which bore the mark 'Agr Evo'. The proceedings impugned in this appeal have held that the pesticides which bore the mark Agr Evo' would not be eligible for the exemption in view of para 4 of Notification 1/93 and Explanation IX to the Notification. Accordingly, duty demand has made in respect of those goods.
3. Arguing the appeal before us today, Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that 'Agr Evo' is a House Mark of M/s.Hoechst Schering Agr Evo Ltd. and not a Trade Mark. He submitted that the use of House Mark not disentitle a SSI from the benefit of Notification 1/93. He referred in this connection to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Astra Pharmaceutials Pvt. vs. CCE 1995 (75) ELT 214 (SC). He also submitted that even if the benefit of exemption was denied to the appellant, in respect of goods bearing the mark 'Agr Evo', fresh computation of duty demand is required to be made. He submitted that under the notification, value of the goods made under the brand name of another person was required to be excluded while computing the value of goods eligible for SSI exemption. He submitted that goods cleared by the appellant under his own name had been cleared on payment of duty at higher rates on account of including goods with the mark of 'Agr Evo' as eligible for exemption. He therefore,, submitted that while re-assessing the goods with 'Age Evo' at higher rate of duty and demanding differential duty amount due, adjustment towards the excess duty already paid by the appellant in respect of goods bearing their own brand name should be allowed.
4. We have heard Learned Departmental Representative also. He submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court with regard to House Mark would be relevant only to patent and proprietary medicines and not on other goods like Pesticides. According to him, re-computation of duty amount, after excluding the goods manufactured with 'Agr Evo' mark, for finding out the eligibility to claim benefit of notification, cannot be denied.
5. Appellants were manufacturing pesticides. Rule relating to House Mark is applicable only in respect of medicine. The judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered in the context of exemption of patent and proprietary medicines. That principle relating to assessment of patent and proprietary medicine is not applicable to the assessment of pesticides involved in the present appeal. The mark 'Agr Evo connected the goods to Hoechst Schering Agr Evo Ltd. Therefore, the lower authorities were right in denying the benefit of SSI exemption by invoking para 4 of notification 1/93 to the goods bearing that mark. However, while computing differential duty, due adjustment should have been made towards higher duty, if any paid, in respect of the goods produced under the appellant's own name. It is well-settled that branded goods have to be altogether excluded while determining the exemption limit available under SSI notification. Accordingly, in the instant case while recomputing the differential duty payable by the appellant in respect of goods bearing the mark 'Agr Evo', his clearances under his own brand name are required to be re-assessed separately. Net differential duty demand can be worked out only after such re-assessment.
6. In view of what has been stated above, we confirm the denial of exemption in respect of goods bearing the mark 'Agr Evo' and remand the case for re-computation of duty demand.