M/S. VIR RUBBER PRODUCTS P. LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-ILL

Citation: [2015] 4 S.C.R. 476 · Decided: 27-03-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
[2015] 4 S.C.R. 476 
MIS. VIR RUBBER PRODUCTS P. LTD. 
v. 
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-Ill 
Civil Appeal No.2609 of 2004 
MARCH 27, 2015 
[A.K. SIKRI AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.] 
Central Excise Act, 1944 -Excise duty - Exemption -
Assessee a Small Scale Industry (SS/) - Manufacturing 
products in its own brand name as well as for other 
companies on which the brand names of those companies 
were used - Claim by assessee for SS/ benefit under a 
Notification, for the goods which were manufactured by the 
assessee under its own brand name - Denial of, on the 
ground that the assessee did not fulfill the condition that 
aggregate value of clearance in the preceding financial 
E year was not less than 3 crores - Held: The assessee was 
entitled to SS/ benefit under the Notification -
The 
authorities were not right in adding the value of the goods 
which were manufactured for other companies, while 
considering the value of the goods cleared by the 
F assessee in the previous year- Notification No. 1193. 
Words and Phrases - 'Brand name' - Meaning of 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. The Notification No. 1/93 specifically 
mentions that the exemption contained in that 
Notification is not to apply to those goods bearing 
brand name or trade name whether registered or not of 
H 
476 
VIR RUBBER PRODUCTS P. LTD. v. COMMNR. OF 
477 
CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-Ill 
another person, except in certain cases which are A 
mentioned therein. [Para 4) [481-F] 
2. The brand name or trade name is defined to 
mean a brand name or trade name, a name or a mark 
such as a symbol, monogram, label, signature or B 
invented word, etc., 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 or mark with or without any indication 
of the identity of that person. [Para 4) [481-F-H] 
c 
Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur v. Mis. 
Tubes & Structurals and Another 2015(4) SCALE 78 -
relied on. 
3. On the goods manufactured by the appellant for D 
the other automobile companies, the appellant had 
been using brand name or trade name on those goods. 
Thus, in respect of those goods where brand name of 
other party is used on manufactured goods and that 
other party is not a SSI unit, exemption is not available. E 
This would lead to inevitable result that the value of 
such goods cannot be added as well, while 
considering the value of the goods cleared by the 
assessee in the previous year. [Paras 5 and 7) [482-E; 
F 
484-D-E] 
4. Therefore, the value of the goods meant for 
other automobile companies could not have been 
included while considering as to whether the appellant 
is entitled to the benefit of the Notification or not. Once G 
that is excluded and the case is confined to appellant's 
own brand name and in respect of which the appellant 
had claimed exemption, the value of goods cleared in 
the previous year was less than Rs.3 crores. Thus, the 
appellant shall be e .. !itled to the exemption under the H 
478 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 4 S.C.R. 
A said Notification. [Para 10] [486-D-F] 
Kohinoor Elastics (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central 
Excise, Indore (2005) 7 SCC 528; Commissioner of 
Central Excise, Trichy v. Mis. Grasim Industries Ltd. 2005 
B (3) SCR 466 - referred to. 
c 
Case Law Reference 
2015(4) SCALE 78 
(2005) 1 sec 528 
2005 (3) SCR 466 
Relied on 
Referred to. 
Referred to. 
Para 6 
Para 8 
Para 9 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No 
D 2609 of 2004. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.06.2003 of the 
Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, West 
Zonal Bench, Mumbai in Appeal No. E/3424/01-8 order 
Mumbai. 
C. Hari Shankar, Pushkar Singh, Neeru Vaid for the 
Appellant. 
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, ASG, Arijit Prasad, Kapil Rustogi, 8. 
F 
Krishna Prasad for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. The appellant herein was engaged in 
the manufacture of certain articles from vulcanized rubber as 
G bushes for use in the motor vehicles. Indubitably, the 
appellant is a Small Scale Industrial unit (hereinafter referred 
to as 'SSI' for short). The appellant has its own brand name 
"VIR" and has been manufacturing these products under the 
H said brand name and supplying the same to various 
VIR RUBBER PRODUCTS P. LTD. v. COMMNR. OF 
479 
CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-Ill [A. K. SIKRI, J.] 
customers. In addition, the appellant was also having 

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