2004 (9) TMI 164

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as a dispute regarding classification of some of the products manufactured by the appellants and also their entitlement to SSI benefit under the relevant exemption Notifications in view of the fact that the Appellants used the name Vetcare in their products and the brand name 'VETCARE' was owned by M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd., Bangalore. When the Department decided the issue against the appellants, the appellants filed an appeal to the Tribunal. The Department had also filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner. Both the appeals were decided by the Tribunal in its Final Order No. 972 and 973/2001, dated 31-5-2001 [2002 (148) E.L.T. 585 (T)]. In the above order, the Tribunal remanded the ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tal submission meriting careful consideration. (iv)  The products manufactured by the appellants were different from those of M/s. Tetragon and registration of VETCARE as a trade mark by that company was irrelevant, inconsequential and immaterial to the issue at hand. (v)   As the appellants had not suppressed any facts, the imposition of penalty on them is not justified. Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar, learned Advocate appeared for the appellants and Shri L. Narasimha Murthy, learned SDR appeared for the Revenue. 4. During the personal hearing, ld. Advocate contended that as the appellants have been registered under the Company Act, they have every right to use their own name VETCARE on their products. In thi....