1999 (6) TMI 226 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Correction of typographical errors in grounds of appeal; Denial of benefit of Notification No. 175/86 due to use of brand name.

In the present case, a Miscellaneous application was filed to correct typographical errors in the grounds of appeal related to the company's name. The appeal challenged Order-in-Appeal No. 369/88, which denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 on the basis that the appellants were using another person's brand name, thus not qualifying for the SSI Notification. The Tribunal allowed the Miscellaneous application after hearing both sides and verification.

Regarding the use of brand name, the appellants argued that the words "Produced under licence from: Ameron U.S.A." and "Marketed by Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd." did not constitute a brand name as per Notification No. 175/86. They contended that these words simply referred to the companies involved in supplying technology under license and marketing the goods, respectively. Citing previous decisions, the appellants emphasized that mentioning the names of foreign collaborators and Indian marketing companies did not amount to a brand name. The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, noting that the names mentioned were those of the companies involved in technology supply and marketing, not brand names. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal and allowed the appeal, granting any consequential relief as per law.