COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTTA versus M/S. EMKAY INVESTMENTS (P.) LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 761 · Decided: 08-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

--
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALCUTT A 
A 
v. 
MIS. EMKA Y INVESTMENTS (P.) LTD. AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 8, 2004 
[S.N. VARIA VA, DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN 
AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.) 
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985; Sub-heading 4408.90/Central Excise 
B 
and Salt Act, 1944; Section 4/Central Excise Rules, 1944; Rules 9(1), 52A, 
C 
173B, 173C, 173F, 173G(2) & 226/Exemption Notification No. 175186-CE 
and Explanation VIII thereunder : 
Assessees!Firm using brand/logo owner by other manufacturer of 
plywood on the plywood manufactured by them-Benefit of ememption 
. Notification-Eligibility for-Held : Assessees used logo owned by another D . 
lareg-scale manufacturer-By doing so they contravened the relevant excise 
rules for the use of logo and became ineligible for grant of benefit of the 
exemption Notification. 
The questions which arose for determination is these appeals were E 
as to whether the respondents/assessees, manufacturer of plywood using 
the logo of another large-scale manufacturer of plywood in addition to 
their own brand/logo have made themselves disentitled to the benefit of 
small scale industries exemption Notification No. 175/86-CE and as to 
whether the markings or inscriptions on the goods should ht> considered 
as the brand name of a firm, and if these are used by others, whether 
it would come within the mischief of Clause 7 read with Explanation 
VIII of the Notification. 
F 
It was contended by the appellant that assessees/firm by using a 
registered logo, owned by a large-scale manufacturer, on the goods G 
manufactured by t~em, became ineligible to the benefit of Small Scale 
Industries Exemption Notification; that since assessees used the logo so 
as to influence the trade, provision of Explanation VIII to the Notification 
is attracted; and that the exemption provisions in ta"xing statute should 
be construed strictly. 
H 
761 
A 
762 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
Respondents submitted that the benefit of the exemption Notification 
could not be denied on the ground of affixing on the goods manufactured 
by them a symbol/monogram owned by other manufacturer/person; 
that the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal rightly 
found the markings on the goods manufactured by them and other 
B manufacturer are entirely different; that the markings so used by them 
could not create deception in the course of trade; and that there was no 
visual or phonetic similarity between the logos used by them, vis-a-vis 
used by the other manufacturer. 
Answering the questions in the affirmative and allowing the appeals, 
C the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The impugned goods admittedly contained a registered 
logo belonging to and owned by another firm. Thus it was a clear case 
where the impugned goods were admittedly affixed with registered logo/ 
trade mark of other persons and hence not eligible to S.S.I. exemption. 
]) 
(768-B] 
1.2. The Tribunal has erred in not appreciating that to attract the 
provision of clause 7 of Notification No. 175/86-CE, it is sufficient that 
product contained a trade mark/logo of another ineligible person and 
E whether the product also contained the brand name/trade name/logo of 
the manufacturer, would not and cannot alter such positic:·. --, ilis 
interpretation of Explanation VIII as advanced by the Tribunal does not 
appear to be correct in law and in fact. It was imperative that by using 
the registered logo belonging to other firm on their own product, 
Respondent No. 1 fulfilled the purpose of indicating a relation between 
F the products and the logo owner so as to influence the traC:e and therefore, 
the provision of Explanation VIII were fully satisfied so far. as the 
instant case was concerned. The finding of the Tribunal to the contrary 
is wrong and hence set aside. (768-C, D, E] 
1.3. The first respondent, a manufacturer of plywood classifiable 
G under sub-heading 4408.90 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff 
Act, 1985 (5 of 1985) have contravened the provisions of Rules 9(1), 
I 73B, 173C read with Section 4 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 
and Rules 173F; 17,3G(2) read with Rules 52A and 226 of the Central 
Excise Rules, 1944, by way of suppressing the material fact of use of 
H brand/logo on their goods which is actually owned by the other firm, 
.,. 
Q 
-I 
• 
C.C.E., CALCUTTA v. MIS. EMKA Y INVESTMENTS (P) LTD. [DR. LAKSHMANAN, J.] 763 
a large-scale manufacturer of plywood, and thereby becoming ineligible A 
for the .benef
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.