WINDSOR METAL INDUSTRIES Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned Order -in -Appeal, the issue relates to the denial of the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.2.93 to the appellants. The benefit of this notification has been denied to them on the ground of having used the brand names "Philco", "Windsor and Wilson" on their products 'pressure cookers' belonging to another persons namely M/s Philco Metal Industries and M/s Philco Home Appliances respectively. To substantiate this ground/allegations made in the show cause notice, reliance by the department has been placed solely on the testimony of Shri M.L. Ahuja, one of the partners of the appellants firm.

(2.) WE have heard both the sides and gone through the records. From the record, it is evident that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of only pressure cookers and they are clearing the same under their own brand name 'Windsor'. There is no evidence on the record to prove if this brand name belongs to any other person.

(3.) THERE is also no tangible evidence on record to prove that the appellants have ever cleared the pressure cookers under the brand names 'Philco', 'Windsor and Wilson'. The observations of the lower authorities that Shri M.L. Ahuja one of the partners of the appellants firm and also proprietor of M/s Philco Metal Industrial and M/s Philco Home Appliances respectively, had admitted the use of these brand names by the appellants in his statement, on the pressure cookers, are factually incorrect. We have gone through the statement of Shri M.L. Ahuja and in his statement, he had nowhere admitted these facts. He only stated that the appellants were clearing the goods under the brand name of Windsor and brand name 'Philco' was being used by another firm M/s Philco Metal Industries which is engaged in the manufacture of utensils, etc. It appears that the lower authorities have misread his statement resulting in the arrival of a wrong conclusion. No evidence has been collected by the department to prove the use of brand name 'Philco' by the appellants on their product - - pressure cookers. The copies of the invoices placed on record, show that they had cleared their product, under the brand name 'Windsor' only.