9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 482X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were alleged to have affixed name plate of M/s. Emeskay Engineers Pvt. Ltd. According to the department fixing of these name plates amount to use of trade name and brand name of the said company. The appellants denied using the brand name of M/s. Emeskay Engineers Pvt. Ltd. They stated that they were job workers and after the work was completed the representative of M/s. Emeskay Engineers Pvt. Ltd. fixed the label of their company for identification purpose. The appellant s plea was not accepted and the Commissioner in the impugned order has held that they affixed the name plate/brand name of the traders and they are not eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-86 and 1/93, dated 28-2-93. Hence duty of Rs. 8,28,673/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... customer recognised the final product with reference to that word Glidden and hence the Tribunal held that such use of house mark could not dis-entitle to benefit of SSI exemption. The judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Nippa Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 490 was also referred wherein the party had merely indicated the name of the company and the Tribunal held that affixing name or mark of the company is not same as marking their name and hence the benefit of notification cannot be denied. Counsel submits that in the present case no brand name or trade name were used. The trader who was placing the orders on the appellant as a job worker had only affixed his label of the company and label of M/s. Em ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake a branded goods. This view has been expressed by the Tribunal in all the judgments referred to by the consultant noted supra. All these citations clearly apply to the facts of the case. The appellants are not affixing trade name or brand name and the company name of the buyers was fixed which does not dis-entitle the appellant from claiming the benefit of the notification. The Apex Court judgment cited by ld. DR is not applicable to the facts of the case. In the said case, the brand name and trade name was being affixed. The said brand name and trade name was owned by non-manufacturer which dis-entitle appellant from claiming benefit of notification. In the present case the appellant had not affixed any trade name or brand name. The nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
