2003 (4) TMI 482

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ould not be imposed with penalty. The appellants were alleged to have affixed name plate of M/s. Emeskay Engineers Pvt. Ltd. According to the department fixing of these name plates amount to use of trade name and brand name of the said company. The appellants denied using the brand name of M/s. Emeskay Engineers Pvt. Ltd. They stated that they were job workers and after the work was completed the representative of M/s. Emeskay Engineers Pvt. Ltd. fixed the label of their company for identification purpose. The appellant's plea was not accepted and the Commissioner in the impugned order has held that they affixed the name plate/brand name of the traders and they are not eligible to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-86 and 1/9....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... also the word 'Glidden' was only 'house mark' and no customer recognised the final product with reference to that word 'Glidden' and hence the Tribunal held that such use of 'house mark' could not dis-entitle to benefit of SSI exemption. The judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Nippa Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 490 was also referred wherein the party had merely indicated the name of the company and the Tribunal held that affixing name or mark of the company is not same as marking their name and hence the benefit of notification cannot be denied. Counsel submits that in the present case no brand name or trade name were used. The trader who was placing the orders on the appellant as a job worker had only ....