2003 (3) TMI 621

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : Jeet Ram Kait, Member (T) (Oral)]. This appeal by revenue is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 4/2001 (M-III) (D) dated 16-1-2001 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the impugned goods are eligible for SSI concessions by upholding the order of the original adjudicating authority. 2. Aggrieved by this order, the revenue has come in appeal on the ground that the respondent a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93 as amended was not available to the specified goods where the manufacture affixes the said specified goods with the brand name or trade name of a foreign person and that of a non manufacturing trader. Revenue further submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not applied the above case to the instant case citing that in the Namtech Systems case (sup .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me of a firm was used by the assessee, he would be eligible for benefit of Notification No. 175/86, if exclusive rights to use the trade mark under the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 is available to the assessee. The present respondent-assessee had neither registered the various trade names in India with the Registrar of Trademarks nor has obtained the exclusive rights of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed for the SSI exemption. The department has failed to establish to whom the brand names alleged in the show cause notice belonged and whether such brand names were registered in the country to make them ineligible for availing the SSI concession under Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-93. He further submitted that the judgment relied by the department in the grounds of appeal are distinguishable .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... person. 2. The ownership of the brand name should be first ascertained and established. 3. If a brand name is not owned by any particular person their use thereof will not deprive the benefit of small scale exemption. Applying the above criteria to the facts of this case, we find no force in the Revenue s appeal that the respondent-assessee had utilised the above name of another .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X