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

1999 Supreme(Bom) 238

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(PANAJI BENCH)
N.P. Chapalgaonkar R.K. Batta, JJ.
DCI Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd...... Petitioners.
Versus
The Superintendent of Central Excise (DIV) others..... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 242 of 1993, decided on 24-3-1999.
Advocates appeared :
S.K. Kakodkar, S.A. with R.V. Kamat, for the petitioners.
S.R. Rivonkar, A.C.G. S.C., for the respondents.

The use of the logo of another person on the cartons of specified goods does not amount to the use of a brand name or trade name of another person within the meaning of para 7 of Notification No. 175/186-C.E. and Explanation VIII thereto, where the brand name or trade name is used only for the purpose of indicating from whom the goods would be available.

Headnote:

CENTRAL EXCISE - EXEMPTION - NOTIFICATION NO. 175/186-C.E. DATED 1ST MARCH, 1986 - PARA 7 - EXPLANATION VIII - BRAND NAME OR TRADE NAME - USE OF LOGO OF ANOTHER PERSON - NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION - PETITIONER'S PRODUCT "BETNOR" - LOGO OF "INDOCCO" PRINTED ON CARTON - NOT IDENTIFIED WITH USER OF BRAND-NAME - ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, manufacturers of pharmaceutical products, claimed exemption from duty for their product "Betnor" under Notification No. 175/186-C.E. dated 1st March, 1986. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) denied the exemption on the ground that the product bore the logo of "Indoco Remedies Ltd.", which was not eligible for the exemption. The petitioners challenged these orders in a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the use of the logo of "Indoco Remedies Ltd." on the cartons of "Betnor" did not amount to the use of a brand name or trade name of another person within the meaning of para 7 of Notification No. 175/186-C.E. and Explanation VIII thereto. The court found that there was no material to show that "Indoco Remedies Ltd." was also producing a combination of Betamethasone and Neomycin under the brand-name "Betnor", or using the brand-name/trade-name "Betnor" for any of their produces. Therefore, the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the Exemption Notification.

Issues: Whether the use of the logo of "Indoco Remedies Ltd." on the cartons of "Betnor" amounted to the use of a brand name or trade name of another person within the meaning of para 7 of Notification No. 175/186-C.E. and Explanation VIII thereto.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted para 7 of Notification No. 175/186-C.E. and Explanation VIII thereto to mean that the exemption would not apply where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under the notification. However, the court held that this provision would not apply where the brand name or trade name is used only for the purpose of indicating from whom the goods would be available.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Panaji on 6th May, 1991 and by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay, on 26th November, 1992 and declared that the petitioners were entitled for the benefit of the Exemption Notification No. 175/186-C.E. for the goods cleared.

JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.:---Petitioners, M/s. D.C.I. Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., are manufacturers of pharmaceutical products. They claim to be a Small Scale Industry. One of their products has a brand name "Betnor". It is combination of Betamethasone and Neomycin. It is used as eye/ear drops. Petitioners claim that they are entitled to the benefit of a Notification No. 175/186-C.E. dated 1st March, 1986, as amended, for exemption for the first clearance of specified goods up to the value of Rs. 15,00,000/- and concessional duty on subsequent clearance in the case of clearance not exceeding rupees 2 crores in the preceeding years. Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, had given powers to the Central Government to grant exemption from duty in certain cases. Section 5-A was inserted in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, with effect from 1st July, 1988 and section 5-A has now provided for the power to exempt and reference to Rule 8 now will not be necessary since it stood abrogated.

2.It is contended by the petitioners that they are entitled for other benefit of the aforesaid Exemption Notification, but by an Order dated 6th May, 1991, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Panaji, Goa, denied the benefit of the said Notification to the petitioners' clearance and the said Order was confirmed in appeal by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay on 26th November, 1992. The writ petition challenges both these Orders.

3.The carton containing 5 ml. packing of "Betnor", specified goods in question, is produced on record. On two sides of the carton the logo of D.C.I. Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. is printed. It is also mentioned on both the sides that the said specified goods are manufactured in India by D.C.I. Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Vidyanagar, Margao, Goa, 403601. Out of the four sides of the carton, on one side there is a logo "Indoco" and it is mentioned that these goods are marketed by Indoco Remedies Ltd., 18-A, Mahal Estate, Andheri (E), Bombay 400 093. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Panaji, recorded an admission by the petitioner that the product is marketed by Indoco Remedies Ltd. and it bears its logo. The fact that Indoco Remedies Ltd. are not eligible for exemption of duty under Notification No. 175/186-C.E. as amended is not in dispute. Petitioners' contention that the logo has been used only for the purpose of indicating from whom the goods would be available is also recorded. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Panaji, was of the opinion that in terms of para 7 with Explanation VIII of Notification No. 175/186-C.E., as amended, the product will not be eligible for exemption of duty under the above Notification. The Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay, who dismissed the Appeal observed:

".....the appellants have admitted that the trade mark 'Indoco' of M/s. Indoco Remedies is used for the reason that the latter is a distributor and promoter. So it is not that the said trade mark is mentioned for any purpose other than the trade. The trade mark of Indoco Remedies helps them in promoting their sales for their product. If this is not the purpose, there should not have any need to show the trade mark of M/s. Indoco Remedies so prominently to attract the immediate attention of the customer."

For this reason he confirmed the Order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Panaji and dismissed the Appeal. Para 7 of the Exemption Notification, which according to the Revenue, disentitles the petitioner from the exemption, so far as is relevant for the purpose of this writ petition, reads as under:-

"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."

Explanation VIII to the said para 7 defines "brand name" or "trade name" as under :-

"Explanat






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
whatsapp-icon Back to top