COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD Vs. SANGHI THREADS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these appeals at the instance of Revenue common issue coming up for consideration is whether the respondent -assessee is entitled to the concessional rate of duty on the basis of SSI exemption under Notification Nos. 16/97, 8/98 and 8/99. According to the Revenue, the assessee M/s. Sanghi Threads Pvt. Ltd. are using symbol/monogram (S) on the packing material of the specified goods such as carton and plastic covers in which goods are packed, that the above mark is used by all units of Sanghi Group of Industries and therefore, the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty as the specified goods are bearing a brand name or trade name of another person. It is contended that the said symbol/monogram (S) is available on the letter pads of Sanghi Group of Industries, namely, M/s. Sanghi Polyesters Ltd., M/s. Sanghi Textiles Ltd., M/s. Sanghi Filaments Ltd., M/s. Sanghi Spinners (India) Ltd. and M/s. Sanghi Zip Fasteners Pvt. Ltd. and that these units are not eligible for SSI exemption. The original authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalty.

(2.) THE Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the monogram/symbol (S) is only a house mark for identification of the manufacturer. He also took the view that the symbol/monogram (S) is followed by the name of particular unit of the Sanghi Group, namely, (S) Sanghi Threads Pvt. Ltd. (S), Sanghi Polyester Ltd. etc. and therefore, totality of the emblem shall be taken into consideration and not symbol/monogram (S) in isolation. The Commissioner (Appeals) further found that the goods manufactured by the respondent, namely, vulcanized rubber, thread and elastic tape are not being manufactured by any other company of Sanghi Group. He then relied on the Boards Circular dated 30 -12 -88 where it was clarified that if a particular trade mark is registered in favour of two manufacturers, one not eligible to benefit of exemption and the other eligible for such benefit in relation to two different commodities, the benefit of exemption cannot be denied to the other manufacturer. He also made reference to the decision of this Tribunal in CCE, Ahmedabad v. Vikshara Trading and Investment Pvt. Ltd. - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 499 and also Precise Electronics v. CCE - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 69. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, held that the benefit under different SSI Notifications is not deniable to the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) IN this appeal before us, the Revenue contended that any product with reference to monogram (S) is clearly identified in the market as a product of Sanghi Group of Industries. Therefore, the assessee by using the monogram (S) are identifying themselves as Sanghi Group of Industries which is fairly well known in the trade. The assessees product is thus placed at the advantageous position when compared to the products of an unknown unit. This would clearly defeat the intention of the Government to extend the protection to SSI Units by way of granting exemption. It is further contended that even if the appellants are producing a different product, it is not entitled to the benefit of SSI Notification. In support of the above contention reliance was placed on the decision of Intercity Cable System (P) Ltd., 1995 (80) E.L.T. 445 (T).