Case: Commissioner of C. Ex Vs. Vetcare Organics P. Ltd

The respondent claims itself to be a Small Scale Industrial Unit (SSI) and is manufacturing organic chemicals, disinfectants and other products. It claimed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 dated 01.03.1986 and 1/93 dated 01.03.1993 as amended from time to time which provides for exemption from payment of excise duty to the SSI unit. However, Notification dated 01.03.1993 as amended also contains a provision that in case the said SSI unit is using brand name which belongs to other company the benefit of Notification dated 01.03.1986 shall not be available to such a SSI unit.The Collector of Central Excise, Bangalore, had passedon the aforesaid ground, viz., the respondent was using brand name VETCARE of M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd., Bangalore. This order was passed after issuing show cause notice to the respondent and giving the respondent an opportunity of being heard. The respondent filed appeal before the Tribunal. The said appeal resulted in the remand order passed by the Tribunal directing the adjudicating authority to carry out de novo adjudication after remand. The Commissioner passed orders dated 22.11.2001 confirming its earlier order. Against that order, the respondent filed the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as CESTAT) which has been allowed setting aside the decision of the Commissioner, holding that the brand name VETCARE belongs to the respondent and since it is a user of its own brand name, the case shall not come within the expression mentioned in the Notification dated 01.03.1993.

Court's reasoning:
8. The aforesaid principle of law is no more res integra and has been decided by this Court authoritatively in couple of judgments. In Commissioner of Central Excise,Vs. Mahaan Dairies (2004) 11 SCC 798  this Court while interpreting the similar nature of definition of brand name or trade name, held ashave today delivered a judgment in CCE v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders wherein we have held in respect of another notification containing identical words that it makes no difference whether the goods on which the trade name or mark is used are the same in respect of which the trade mark is registered. Even if the goods are different, so long as the trade name or brand name of some other company is used the benefit of the notification would not be available. Further, in our view, once a trade name or brand name is used then mere use of additional words would not enable the party to claim the benefit of theis clear from the above that the Court was of the view that even if the goods are different, so long as brand name or trade name of some other Company is used, the benefit of Notification would not be available. To the same effect is the judgment of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise,vs. Bhalla Enterprises (2005 (8) SCC 308 ) wherein aforesaid judgment in Mahaan Dairies was followed by reiterating the same principle.The offshoot of the aforesaid discussion is to hold that the order of the CESTAT is erroneous and warrants to be set aside.