SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Kar) 298

Karnataka High Court
NECTAR BEVERAGES PRIVATE LIMITED, DHARWAD - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 12-03-93
W.P. : 1154 of 1989

Advocates:
ASHOK HARANAHAFLI, CHANDER KUMAR, D.V.SHAILENDRA KUMAR, N.SANTOSH HEGDE, R.V.PRASAD, VASAN KOTVAL

The court established the validity of the denial of exemption to small scale industrial units using another person's brand name/trade name under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Rule 8(1).

Headnote:

EXEMPTION - Small Scale Industrial Units - Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, Rule 8(1) - The court discussed the validity of the second notification (no. 223 of 1987) which denied the exemption to small scale industrial units using the brand name/trade name of another person. The court analyzed the power to issue and amend notifications under Rule 8(1) and the scope of exemption from levy of duty. The court also considered the nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the notification, and the interpretation of the relevant explanations.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, small scale industrial units, were denied the benefit of exemption under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, due to the use of another person's brand name/trade name. The court considered the validity of the denial, the interpretation of relevant explanations, and specific cases of the petitioners.

Finding of the Court:

The court rejected the contentions regarding the validity of the denial of exemption, the interpretation of the relevant explanations, and the classification based on the use of brand name/trade name. The court directed the petitioners to file appropriate appeals before the statutory appellate authority within sixty days.

Issues: Validity of denial of exemption, interpretation of relevant explanations, and specific cases of the petitioners.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of exemption to small scale industrial units using another person's brand name/trade name was valid, and directed the petitioners to file appropriate appeals before the statutory appellate authority within sixty days.

Final Decision: All the writ petitions were dismissed, subject to the liberties given to the petitioners to file appropriate appeals before the statutory appellate authority within sixty days.

K. S. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) DENIAL of the benefit of exemption granted to small scale industrial units, to the petitioners who are ssi units but are alleged to be using the brand name/trade name of another, is the subject-matter of these writ petitions.

( 2 ) AS per notification no. 175 of 1986, small scale industries ('ssi units' for short) were granted exemption from the levy of duty under the provisions of the central excises and salt Act, 1944 ('the act' ). Subsequently, by notification no. 223 of 1987, dated 22-9-1987, para 7 was added to the earlier notification, effect of which is to deny the exemption to the ssi units using the brand name/trade name of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemptions under the notification. These notifications were issued under rule 8 (1) of the central excise rules.

( 3 ) PETITIONERS attack the validity of the second notification (no. 223 of 1987) on the grounds that it is ultra vires the provisions of the act and that it offends Article 14 of the constitution. In a few writ petitions, petitioners further contend that the 2nd notification is not applicable to them and therefore denial of the exemption is not warranted.

( 4 ) THE relevant parts of the first notification read as follows: "notification no. 175 of 1986-c. e. , dated 1-3-1986. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the central excise rules, 1944, and in supersession of the notification of the government of India in the ministry of finance (department of revenue) no. 85/85-central excise, dated the 17th march, 1985, the central government hereby exempts the excisable goods of the description specified in the annexure below and falling under the schedule to the central excise tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), (hereinafter referred to as the 'specified goods'), and cleared for home consumption on or after the 1st day of april in any financial year, by a manufacturer from one or more factories, (A) in the case of the first clearance of the specified goods upto an aggregate value not exceeding rupees seven and a half lakhs, (i), (ii), (b) and (c) xxxx (omitted as unnecessary) 2. Xxx xxx xxx. 3. Xxx xxx xxx. (omitted as unnecessary) 4. The exemption contained in this notification shall be applicable only to a factory which is an undertaking registered with the director of industries in any state or the developmental commissioner (small scale industries) as a small scale industry under the provisions of the industries (development and regulations) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951 ). " (rest omitted as unnecessary) the second notification is as follows:"notification no. 223 of 1987-central excise. Gsr 813 (e):in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- rule (1) of rule 8 of the central excise rules, 1944, the central government hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification (department of revenue) no. 175 of 1986-central excise, dated the 1st march, 1986, namely, in the said notification: (i) after paragraph 6, the following paragraph shall be inserted, namely. "7. The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under this notification: provided that nothing contained in this paragraph shall be applicable in respect of the specified goods cleared for home consumption before the first day of october, 1987"; (II) after explanation vii, the following explanation shall be inserted, namely: "explanation viii : "brand name" or "trade name" shall 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 word 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












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top