9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (6) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n were also imposed on these five appellants. 2. Heard Shri Ravi Shankar, ld. Advocate for M/s. Orveem Industries, Balaji Electro Control Pvt. Ltd M/s. Control Devices and Shri S. Raghu, ld. Advocate for M/s. Sri Rama Engineers. When the matter was called none appeared for M/s. Energy Enterprises and therefore the matter is being decided on merits as it is connected with other appeals. 3. Also heard Shri S. Sankaravadivelu, ld. DR for Revenue. 4. Learned Advocates submit that the simple issue for consideration is whether affixation of a name plate bearing NGEF along with rating plate on control devices manufactured by each of these appellants and sold to M/s. NGEF for further use as original equipment in the manufacture of transfo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 326 (T); Srinisan Cables Pvt. Ltd. as in 2000 (126) E.L.T. 1057 (Tribunal) = 1999 (32) RLT 418 (T); Electrohms Pvt. Ltd. as in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 265 (Tribunal) = 1999 (32) RLT 421 (T) Astra Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. as in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.) = 1995 (6) RLT 445 (S.C.). 6. Ld. Advocates submit that by two subsequent orders dated 26-5-1992 and 22-3-1993, the same Collector of Central Excise concerned has for the similar other ancillary units held that affixation of the name plate use of NGEF would not amount to use of brand name of a non-SSI person and therefore has allowed the SSI exemption under the said notification. 7. Shri S. Sankaravadivelu, ld. DR submits that the company NGEF is basically engaged only in the manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T. 214 (S.C.) = 1995 (6) RLT 449 (S.C.)]. The Hon ble Supreme Court has made a distinction therein between a brand name and house monogram. It has been held that house monogram merely identifies a manufacturer and also records that the product has been manufactured according to the technical specifications and quality requirements of that manufacturer. It does not refer to the distinction made between house mark and the product mark. The product mark is a brand name but the house mark is only a monogram. For each product a separate mark known as a product mark or brand name would identify that product. Whereas, a house mark shall only identify the manufacturer and not its specific product. We find that this concept has been applied also in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue there cannot be conflicting views by quasi-judicial authorities in the same Collectorate. In the instant case, ld. Advocates have referred to two orders-in-original of the concerned Collectorate as noted above wherein the SSI exemption on similar products have been allowed for use of similar alphabets NGEF thereon. 13. We have perused the said orders and we find that ld. Collector had therein taken a view that evidence on record showed that those items were sold only to M/s. NGEF and were not traded in the open market. As against that, in the impugned order-in-original unfortunately this aspect has not been considered. Since the impugned order-in-original is at variance with these two other orders-in-original and the third order- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
