ORDER
P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is against an order passed by the Collector of Central Excise on 9-12-1994 and is pursuant to the Board’s review order dated 8-12-95. It challenges the dropping of demand of duty of Rs. 1,68,180,28 in respect of branded goods cleared by the respondents to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. during 1988-89 to 1992-93. The subject goods had been affixed with labels bearing the logo of M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., with the words ‘COX’ and ‘MARUTI’ respectively, above and below the logo. The department had alleged that such brand name shown on the product label was indicative of connection between the goods and M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. who were not eligible for SSI exemption and, therefore, the branded goods were hit by the bar created in para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-86, wherein it had been provided that the benefit of exemption under the notification would not be available to excisable goods cleared with the brand name of another person who was not eligible for such exemption. The Collector did not accept the department’s perception. He took the view that, as the word ‘MARUTI’ in Hindi (Devanagari), which was used by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. on their products, was absent on the labels on the subject goods, the brand name used by the respondents was not identical with the one used by M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. and, therefore, the subject goods did not attract para 7 ibid. Accordingly, Id. Collector of Central Excise allowed the benefit of the above notification to the assessee in respect of the subject clearances. Hence the Revenue’s appeal before us.
2. A preliminary objection was raised by Id. Counsel for the respondents. He pointed out that the Board’s review order available on record did not carry the dated signature of the reviewing authority and that a copy thereof was attested by a subordinate officer on 20-12-95. Counsel expressed a doubt that the review order was passed after 8-12-95, in which event it was beyond the period of one year (from the date of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise) prescribed under the Central Excise Act. If the review order was passed beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the appeal was not maintainable. As Id. Counsel had raised this objection on earlier occasions also, we had called for the original records from the Board’s office through SDR. The records were produced before us and we perused the same. We found that the Member (L & J) of the Board had signed the finalised review order on 8-12-95 itself. Thus, the Collector’s order was reviewed within the period of limitation. The preliminary objection stands overruled.
3. After hearing both sides on the substantive issue arising in this case, we have found that the assessee had filed Appeal No. E/184/1995/MAS with the Tribunal against the demand of duty confirmed by the Collector against them in respect of the goods cleared by them to another customer, M/s. Premier Automobiles Ltd. The said appeal was disposed of by this Tribunal by Order No. 2578/96, dated 3-12-96. It is pertinent to note that, in para 3 of the said order, this Bench upheld the view taken by the Collector with regard to the clearances made to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. by the assessee during the period of dispute. Para 3 ibid reads as under:
We observe the admitted position is that the brand name of Maruti & Premier Automobiles has been used on the product. Once that is done, the mischief of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86 gets attracted. The brand holder are not eligible for the benefit of small scale exemption.
The above finding of this Bench has already become final. Hence it is now not open to the respondents to claim that the goods cleared by them during the period of dispute to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd., under the logo of that company were not hit by para 7 of Notification No. 175/86 ibid. This apart, as rightly submitted by Id. SDR, it is settled law that, to attract the mischief of para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. or para 4 of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. or similar provisions of successor-notifications, it is enough if the brand name affixed to the specified excisable goods indicates a connection between the goods and the brand name-owner. The following decisions to this effect were cited by Id. SDR:
(i) CCE v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders
(iii) CCE v. Grasim Industries Ltd.
4. The brand name in question, used by the respondents on their goods supplied to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. during the period of dispute is as shown under:
The logo with the word ‘MARUTI’ shown thereunder would create in anybody’s mind a connection between the goods and M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. The mere fact that the word ‘MARUTI’ in Devanagari was not shown on the label of the subject goods is not enough to dislodge this connection. Hence, as per the Supreme Court’s ruling, the subject clearances should be held to be hit by para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. Accordingly, it is held that the respondents were not eligible for SSI benefit under the said notification in respect of the goods affixed with the above brand name, cleared to M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. during the period of dispute. The contra decision of the Collector of Central Excise is set aside.
5. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands allowed.
(Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open Court on 24-10-2005)
