ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who has held that respondents herein are eligible to the benefit of SSI Notification No. 140/83 as they are clearing the product under the brand name belonging to them and not to any other person. According to the department the entire intention behind the issuance of the notification was to help the small-scale manufacturers to survive in the market and not for the small-scale manufacturers who affixes the brand name or trade name of an ineligible manufacturer as the very raison d’etre for granting exemption disappears.
2. We find that in the present case it is not disputed that the partnership firm to whom the brand name ASOKA earlier belonged was dissolved and subsequently it was used by the members of the family firm and later (before the issue of show cause notice) the brand name was registered in favour of the present respondent. This position is not disputed before us. Therefore we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) particularly in the light of the Tribunal’s judgment in the case of Bentex Motor Control Industries v. CCE, New Delhi as reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 679 and we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.