CCE Vs. ACE AUTO CO. PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Appeal filed by the Revenue, the issue involved is whether the excisable goods manufactured by M/s. Ace Auto Co. Pvt. Ltd. were bearing brand name of another persons making them ineligible for the benefit of small scale exemption.

(2.) When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the respondents nor there was any request for adjourned in -spite of notice. We, further, observe that when the matter was posted for hearing on the last occasion on 22.7.2002, none has appeared on respondents' behalf. We also observe that the respondents have filed under their letter dated 5.9.2002 Cross Objection for consideration by the Tribunal. In view of this we take up the Appeal for disposal after hearing Shri Jagdish Singh, learned Departmental Representative, and perusing the records.

(3.) Shri Jagdish Singh, learned Departmental Representative, submitted that the respondents manufactured clutche plates, clutche cover assemblies and pressure plates which are embossed with symbol and logo "Tata" along with their own brand name "ACE"; that the Additional Commissioner of Central Excise under Order No. 6/99 -2000 dated 3.6.1999 denied the benefit of exemption from payment under Notification No. 1/93 -C.E. dated 28.2.1993 and 16/97 CE on the ground that the goods were bearing brand name of another person and any person buying the impugned product would naturally assume the product to have the quality specification etc. associated with products of Tata' groups; that however, on Appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the Adjudication Order holding that two conflicting names are TATA and "TATA ACE" and the sole reason for this usage of the name "TATA" is that it stands earmarked for particular vehicle." Learned Departmental Representative, further, submitted that TATA is not a merely one company but a group of companies and each such company is entitled to use brand name "TATA"; that the impression in the minds of the consumer is that the product bearing name "TATA" has been manufactured by some of the TATA group company; that, therefore, if some addition to the brand name "TATA" is embossed on a particular product, it indicates connection between the product and the TATA group of Companies in the course of normal trade; that it is apparent from the definition of the brand name given - in the relevant notification; that the main question is not that the party has used a slightly different name but is that what impression it would create; that in the present matter, there is no dispute about the fact that the brand name "TATA" is embossed on the impugned goods manufactured by the respondents creates the impression that the same are manufactured by one of the TATA group of companies. The learned Departmental Representative also relied upon the decision in the case of Ace Metal Company v. CCE, Chandigarh 2001 (135) ELT 616 (Tri) wherein it was held that putting "R" within circle after the brand name does make it a different or distinguished brand/trade name.