COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. MINIMAX INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent No. 1 M/s. Minimax Industries is a partnership firm of which Respondent No. 2 is one of the partners. The Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Partnership Firm') enjoys the status of Small Scale Industry for the purposes of Excise Act and is thus granted exemption from payment of excise duty under the said Act. It is manufacturing machines for production of wire and cables.

(2.) On 19th January, 2000, the Central Excise Officers visited the premises of the partnership firm with prior information that this firm was using brand/logo/trade name of 'Minimax' which belonged to some other unit i.e. M/s. Minimax Engineering Industries (hereinafter referred to as the 'MEI'). The said Engineering Industries, a sole propriety concern of Mohd. Yamin is situated at 12, Krishna Kunj Market, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. The officers on enquiries found that in the machines manufactured by the partnership firm, the name 'MINIMAX' is used alongwith the full name and address of the partnership firm i.e. M/s. Minimax Industries, 93, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092. Statement of Respondent No. 2 i.e. Sh. Liyakat Ali partner was recorded. Thereafter show-cause notice was issued to the partnership firm as to why the status of Small Scale Industries should not be withdrawn/cancelled and exemption be denied on the ground that the said partnership firm has violated the provisions of condition No. 4 of the Notification No. 1/93-CE as well as Notification No. 8/99 CE. This condition No. 4 stipulates that the exemption contained in the Notification would not be applied to the specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name (whether registered or not) of another person. Explanation-IX of the said Notification also defines the terms "Brand name" or "Trade name" to which we shall revert at the appropriate stage.

(3.) The partnership firm replied to the said show cause notice dated 5th July, 2001. In the detailed explanation submitted by the partnership firm, it was, inter alia, clarified as under: