9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HIGH COURT] , we hold that the appellant has every right to use his Company's own name on his products. Therefore, the SSI benefit cannot be denied to the appellant even though the name VETCARE has been registered by another company, namely M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd. In other words, so long as a Company uses its own name on its products, SSI benefit cannot be denied on the ground that the Company's name has been registered by another Company as its brand/trade name. Thus, the name VETCARE should be considered as house mark as far as the appellants are concerned. Hence, they will also be covered by the Supreme Court decision in case of Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh [ 1994 (12) TMI 77 - S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 01 against which the appellants have come in appeal before this Tribunal. In the above order, the adjudicating authority has held that in the year 1994-95, the appellants were not eligible for SSI exemption as they were using the brand name/trade name of M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd, Bangalore, who were not availing the benefit of SSI exemption during the said period. He had also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Rule I73Q(1) read with Rules 9(2), 52A 226 of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants strongly challenged the findings of the adjudicating authority on the following grounds - (i) The appellants being duly registered as a legal entity under company law and also registered as an SSI with the Government of Ka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 (Bom). He also relied on the following case laws - (i) CCE, Hyderabad v. Sarat Electronics - 2004 (167) E.L.T. 404 (T) = 2004 (114) ECR 562 (Tri. - Bang.) (ii) Voltarc India Pvt Ltd. Anr. v. CCE, Gutur and Vice Versa - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 221 (T) = 2004 (63) RLT 58 (CESTAT - Ban.) (iii) Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.) 5. Ld. SDR urged that the decision of the Original Authority is correct in law as the appellants had used the brand name of another company who were not eligible for exemption during the relevant period. 6. We have considered the rival contentions. It is very clear from the records that the appellant is a company registered under the Company Act with the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
