9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (3) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese appeals arise from common OIA No. 442 & 443/2002 setting aside the OIO passed by the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, denying the benefit of SSI exemption on the ground that the assessees have cleared Synthetic Primer under brand name of other persons. After due examination of the entire matter, the Commissioner, in para 6, has held as follows : "6. The impugned order, the appeal an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other person. Only a legal owner had an exclusive right of a brand name. Board's Circular 52/52/94-CX. dated 1-9-94 had clearly stated that if a brand name is not owned by any particular person, the use thereof will not deprive a unit of the benefit under the small scale exemption scheme. This circular was issued by the Board after obtaining the opinion of the Law Ministry. In the relevant case t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that when the products fall under similar category of goods, and therefore, use of common brand name will disentitle the assessees from the benefit of SSI exemption. This is the only ground raised by the Revenue. The learned JDR submits that the benefit of SSI cannot be given, as there has been use of family brand name 'Vinlax'. It is further submitted that M/s. Tracore Paints & Allied Products h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s brand name or trade name and furthermore, it has been held that it neither belongs to any particular person nor is registered. It is further held that when goods are manufactured by two units under different models, capacities, usage and different buyers and hence they cannot be held to be identical. 4. On a careful consideration, we notice that the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone into all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
