M/S REIZ ELECTROCONTROLS PVTS. LTD. versus COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 185 · Decided: 31-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS REIZ ELECTROCONTROLS PVTS. LTD. 
A 
v. 
COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-I 
JULY 31, 2006 
[ARIJIT P~SAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Central Excise Act, 1944. 
Section I I A proviso-Notification providing small scale exemption-
Assessee manufacturing goods under band name belonging to another- C 
Whether benefit of notification available-Held, benefit of notification not 
available to assessee and demands of duty, penalty and interest rightly levied-
Assessee in the meanwhile obtaining certificate of registration of trademark 
covering the period in question-Such stand not taken before Tribunal-Held, 
Tribunal has to consider the plea-Trade Marks Act, 1999. 
D 
Mis. Reiz Enterprises (RE) is proprietary concern of A and is 
engaged in the manufacture of Electronic Fan Regulators, Dimmers and 
Remote Control Switches under the brand name 'REIZ' since 1988. 
Appellant-Mis. Reiz Electrocontrols Pvt. Ltd. (REPL) was constituted in 
the year 1993 with A and his two brothers as its Directors and it was E 
engaged in the manufacture of Electronic Transformers, also under the 
common brand name of 'REIZ'. The Commission, Central Excise-I, New 
Delhi held that brand name 'REIZ' belonged to Mis. RE till its transfer 
to Mis. REPL in 2000 and denied small scale exemption to appellant-Mis. 
REPL on the ground that under Notification no. 1/93 a manufacturer F 
affixing the brand name of another person was ineligible for exemption 
and also held that Mis. RE became ineligible for exemption once the brand 
'REIZ' was transferred on 30.3.200 to Mis. REPL and levied duty, pentaly 
and interest upon them. Appeals were preferred before the Central Excise 
and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi questioning the duty, 
penalty and interest levied. Tribunal held that authorities had rightly G 
denied small scale exemption to Mis. REPL and Mis. RE and further held 
that duty, penalty and interest levied under Central Excise Act, 1944 and 
Central Excise Rules, 1944 did not suffer from any infirmity. Hence this 
appeal by Mis. REPL. 
185 
H 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Appellant contended that electronic transformers manufactured by 
B 
Mis. REPL were not manufactured under brand name of another person; 
the brand name 'REIZ' belonged to Mis. REPL in respect of electronic 
transformer as Mis. RE never manufactured electronic; that there was 
no suppression of facts to evade payment of duty as both manufacturers 
had filed declaration before Central Excise authorities that goods are 
manufactured under brand name belonging to them and brand name of 
another person is not used; and alternatively, that Mis. REPL had applied 
in 1995 for registration of brand name 'REIZ' in their favour for 
electronic transformers and in the meantime obtained certificate of 
registration of trade mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 which also 
C covered the period in question and hence no duty, penalty or interest can 
be levied. 
Disposing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. In economic and taxation sphere, a large latitude should 
D be allowed to the legislature. It makes no difference whether the goods 
on which the trade name or mark 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. Therefore, 
the main contention of the appellant about eligibility for exemption is sans 
E merit. (190-C-D; 192-C-G( 
Commissioner uf Central Excise Chandigarh-I v. Mahaan Dairies, 
(2004) 166 ELT 23 SC, Union of India v. Paliwal Electricals (P} Ltd. and 
Anr., (1996( 3 SCC 407 and Pahwa Chemcials Private limited v. 
F Commissioner of Central Exicse, Delhi (2005) 189 ELT 257, SC relied on. 
G 
2.1. However, the alternative plea needs to be considered. It is 
accepted for the parties that this plea needs factual adjudcation which has 
not been done. It appears that such a stand was not taken before the 
Tribunal. The Tribunal has to consider the plea. [192-G-H; 193-Af 
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-Iv. Mahaan Dairies, 
(2004) 166 ELT 23 SC, relied on 
2.2. If the Tribunal holds that the trade mark registration has any 
relevance, then question of limitation is really of academic interest. But if 
H it is held that the same ~as no relevance the question of limitation has to 
...
REIZ ELECTROCONTROLS PVTS. LTD. 1·. COMMR. OF CENTRAL EXCIS

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.