2005 (3) TMI 555

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellants manufacture Ice-cream makers cooler and Popcorn makers and avail of the benefit of SSI Exemption Notification; that they sell Ice-cream maker in their own brand name "CREMICA" and sell the same to different customers including United Tele Shopping (UTS) and Tele Shopping Network (TSN); that in respect of sale to UTS & TSN the goods were being examined by the Supervisor of these customers before dispatch from their factory and stickers bearing UTS/TSN were being affixed; that these stickers bear the words "Checked Srl. No. Do not remove this sticker"; that the Department has treated the words UTS and TSN as brand name belonging to others and has disallowed the benefit of small scale exemption notification. The learned Consult....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dicate the connection in the course of trade with UTS and TSN; that the Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Mahaan Dairies - 2004 (166) E.L.T. 23 (S.C.) has held that mere use of additional word along with brand name of another person would not enable the assessee to claim the benefit of exemption notification. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in CCE, Trichi v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that "even a use of part of a brand name or trade name, so long as it indicates a connection in the course of trade would be sufficient to disentitle the person from getting exemption under the notification." Finally the learned SDR mentioned that the sample brought by the Appell....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....trade between the goods manufactured by the Appellants and TSN/UTS. Thus the use of these words on the packaging of their product clearly falls within the definition of brand name as given in the SSI Notification. In the case of Rukmani Pakkwell Traders though the trade mark was not entirely reproduced, the Supreme Court has held that "merely because the registered trade mark is not entirely reproduced does not take the Respondents out of Clause 4 and make them eligible to the benefit of the Notification." The decisions relied upon by the learned Consultant are not applicable as the facts are different. In the case of Aarem Enterprises the word "Checked" was clearly mentioned on the sticker which was affixed to show that the goods comes up ....