COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM Vs. ABIDEL (I)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue is aggrieved with the Order -in -Appeal No. 311/2002 dated 16 -5 -2002. By this order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the demands raised against the assessee including the imposition of penalty. The charge against the appellants was that they had used the brand name of Richfield (I). The assessees contention was that by a deed of assignment, the brand name has been assigned to the assessee and they had become the owner of the same and the Richfield had not been using the brand name and, therefore, it cannot be alleged that the assessee had used the brand name of another person. The Commissioner, who has also noted that the revenue did not investigate on the aspect of the fact as to whether the brand name was being used by its owner even after the assignment. The finding recorded by the Commissioner is re -produced herein below :

(2.) WE have heard both sides in the matter.

(3.) LEARNED SDR relied on the ground made out in the appeal and submitted that as the assessee had used the brand name of another person, they were ineligible to claim the benefit of SSI Notification and in this regard, he relied on the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Coco Dry Fruits (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 153 (Tri. - Del.) wherein the facts revealed that the brand name COCO was owned by another person and the other person was still using the brand name COCO for packing their own goods. Therefore, the benefit of SSI exemption was denied.