COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, JALANDHAR Vs. ZOLOTO MALLEABLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard Shri I. Baig, ld. AR appearing for the Revenue and Shri Ravi Chopra, ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent. Though the ld. advocate appearing for the respondent has advanced arguments on the maintainability of the appeal itself inasmuch as the authorisation letter was not signed by the Committee of Commissioners but was signed by the Commissioner, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits inasmuch as we find that the issue stands covered by the precedent decision.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the Central Excise staff visited the factory premises of the party on 27 -10 -2001 and it was found that the party was using the brand name "ZOLOTO -m" on the Pipe Fittings manufactured by them under the SSI exemption notification in operation at the relevant time. In terms of the SSI notification, exemption to the specified goods was not admissible, if the goods bore the 'brand name' or 'trade name' of another person. On physical verification, the staff found stock of Pipe fittings valued at Rs. 4,11,881/ - bearing the brand name "ZOLOTO -m" which was seized by them on the reasonable belief that the respondents were affixing the brand name of another person.

(3.) IT was alleged that merely writing the word "m" with the brand name "ZOLOTO", i.e., "ZOLOTO -m" does not distinguish it from the brand name "ZOLOTO" belonging to M/s Zoloto Industries and the usage of deceptively similar brand name established clearly the intention of the party to take advantage of the established brand name of another person. Thus, the party was not eligible to avail exemption under the SSI notification.