ASOKA WAFERS Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MISCELLANELOUS Applications. The Misc. applications have been filed by the appellants to bring on record certain documents which were not earlier available to the appellants and which according to them form a part of the record of the lower authority and the appellants pleaded that in the light of these documents the Stay Order No. 58/93, dated 23 -2 -1993 earlier passed would require modification in as much as the demand raised would be hit by limitation. The documents sought to be introduced are the following :

(2.) THE learned Advocate pleaded that since the whole issue could be decided on the ground of limitation the appeals could be disposed of on this short point itself. With the consent of both the parties the appeals are, therefore, heard on the ground of limitation. Appeals

(3.) THE learned Advocate pleaded that the Department was all along aware of the use of the brand name 'Asoka' by M/s. Asoka Wafers, the appellants and M/s. Asoka Biscuits the other company to whom the brand name is stated to belong. He pleaded that the appellants had given a correct declaration while availing the benefit of the Notification No. 175/86 and had indicated that they are using brand name 'Asoka' for the Wafers manufactured by them and had also filed a declaration that 'brand name 'Asoka' for Wafers belongs to them and any other goods sold under the same brand name have no concern with their branded goods'. He pleaded they have furnished all the information which was required in law in regard to the nature of the goods manufactured by them and had clearly given on record for the use of the brand name 'Asoka'. He further pleaded that both the units are located side by side and to a query the learned Advocate submitted the distance between the two units would be hardly 100 meters. He pleaded that the same Range Supdt. and the Asstt. Collector had jurisdiction over both the units and in the way the two units are located the authorities have to be taken to be aware of the use of the Brand name 'Asoka' by both the units on their products. He pleaded that probably the authorities themselves were in doubt as to whether wafers and biscuits are same article or two different products. It was only later that they felt that wafers had to be taken to be biscuits and therefore, the appellant's products were hit by para 7 of the Notification No. 175/86 under which if a manufacturer manufactured goods with the brand name of another, the manufacturer was not entitled to the benefit of the Notification 175/86 and his goods would not be eligible for the benefit of the said notification. The learned Advocate cited the case law 1989 (40) E.L.T. 472 in support of his plea.