9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (5) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amgain, Member (T)]. This appeal is filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 1238/99-C.E., dated 22-11-1999 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. 2. Shri P.M. Saleem, ld. SDR appearing for the Revenue pleaded that in this case, the respondents are manufacturer of Automatic PF Control Instrument falling under Chapter sub-heading 8537.00 of Central Excise Tariff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Larger Bench of Tribunal in their Final Order in the case of Namtech Systems Ltd. v. CCE [2000 (115) E.L.T. 238] wherein it was held that benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86 and Notification No. 1/93, dated 1-3-1986 was not available to specified goods with the brand name/trade name of foreign persons and of a non-manufacturing trader. The ratio of this judgment is squarely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strument they are manufacturing is phasitron which is registered trade name used by M/s. Sargrove Automation Ltd. which is registered with the Trade Mark Registry, United Kingdom in 1980. Therefore, he pleaded that the appeal of the Revenue may be allowed. 3. Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondents, drew our attention to Para 6(i) of the Order of the Commissioner whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. not to be denied. He also relied on the decision of the Kolkata High Court in the case of C.C.E., Kolkata v. Esbi Transmission Pvt. Ltd. [1997 (91) E.L.T. 292] wherein it was held that brand name belonging to foreign company but registered in India for others, who acquire exclusive right to use of trade mark in India even though it belonged to a German company who is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
