COMMNR., CENTRAL EXCISE , BANGALORE versus M/S. MEYER HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 794 · Decided: 07-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
(2011] 4 S.C.R. 794 
COMMNR., CENTRAL EXCISE , BANGALORE 
V. 
M/S. MEYER HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No(s). 4052-4054 of 2003) 
APRIL 07, 2011 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
Excise Jaws: 
Exemption - Assignment Deed - Case registered under 
the Excise Jaw against assessee - Assignment of trade mark 
in favour of assessee subsequent to registration of the case 
- Assessee claiming benefit under Exemption Notification on 
0 the basis of Assignment Deed -
Whether or not the 
Assignment Deed which was entered into between the 
assessee and the owner of the trade mark on 6. 10. 1998 would 
date back to period prior to 19.9.1998 when the trade mark 
was assigned and whether the assessee is entitled to take 
benefit of Assignment Deed to avail the benefit of Exemption 
E Notification - Held: The effect of making the registration 
certificate applicable from retrospective date is based on the 
principle of deemed equivalence to public uS'er of trade mark 
- This deeming fiction is applicable to provisions of Trade 
Mark Act and cannot be extended to the excise laws - As to 
F whether or not the said Assignment Deed would relate back 
prior to a date of 19.9.1998 and consequence thereof was a 
matter which was not decided by the Tribunal - Matter remitted 
to the Tribunal for consideration of the s:::iid issue by recording 
an effective and reasoned decision - Trade Marks Act. 
G 
H 
CCE, Ahmedabad v. Vikshara Trading & Invest P. Ltd. 
& Anr. 2003(58)RLT 604(SC); Meghraj Biscuits Industries 
Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., 
U.P. 2007 (210) ELT 161 
(SC) ~ referred to. 
794 
COMMNR., CENTRAL EXCISE , BANGALORE v. 
795.t 
MEYER HEALTH CARE PVT LTD. & ORS. 
Case law reference: 
A 
2003(58) RLT 604(SC) 
referred to 
2007 (210) ELT 161 (SC) referred to 
Para 2 
Para 2 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
4052-4054 of 2003. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 22.11.2002 of the 
Customs, Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, 
South Zonal Bench, Bangalore in Appeal No. E/1873/99, E/ 
1874/99, E/1875/99. 
Arijit Prasad, Arti Singh, D.D. Kamat, B.K. Prasad, Anil 
Katiyar for the Appellant. 
B 
c 
Alok Yadav, Pavan Agarwal, Rajesh Kumar for the 
Respondents. 
D 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and 
order of the Custom, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate 
Tribunal (CEGAT), South Zone Bench allowing the appeal filed 
by the Appellant before the Tribunal and holding that since there 
is an Assignment Deed in favour of the respondent in the 
present case, therefore, the respondent shall be entitled to the 
benefit of the Exemption Notification. The aforesaid findings of 
the Tribunal are under challenge iri this appeal on which we 
have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 
E 
F 
2. Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that 
G 
on the date when the case wa$ registered against the 
respondent, there was· no Assignment Deed executed in favour 
of the respor:ident and, therefore, the respondent is not entitled 
to take benefit of the aforesaid Assignment Deed to avail 
. benefit under the exemption notificaton. The counsel appearing 
H 
796 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A for the respondent, however, refutes the aforesaid submission 
contending, inter alia, that so far the brand name is concerned, 
the owner of the brand name has assigned the trade mark in 
favour of the respondent and, therefore, in view of the decision 
of the Supreme Court in CCE, Ahmedabad Vs. Vikshara 
B Trading & Invest P. Ltd. & Anr. Reported in 2003(58) RLT 
604(SC) the respondent is entitled to avail the benefit of the 
Exemption Notification. However, our attention is drawn to 
another decision of this Court by the counsel appearing for the 
appellant in Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd. 
Vs. 
C CommissionerofC. Ex., UP. Reported in 2007 (210) ELT 161 
(SC) wherein almost a similar issue came to be considered 
by this Court and while dealing with the same, this Court 
observed thus: 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
"On reading the above quoted paragraphs from the above 
judgment, with which we agree, it is clear that the effect of 
making the registration certificate applicable from 
retrospective date is based on the principle of deemed 
equivalence to public user of such mark. This deeming 
fiction cannot be extended to the Excise Law. It is confined 
to the provisions of the Trade Marks Act. In a giv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.