ORDER
G.A. Brahma Deva, Member (J)
1. The issue relates to denial of SSI exemption in terms of Notification No. 1/93.
2. According to the Department, since the appellants are using the brand name ‘Rose’ belonging to others, SSI exemption in terms of Notification No. 1/93 cannot be extended.
3. In support of the appeal, it was submitted on behalf of the party that the party is using the brand name ‘New Rose’ and not ‘Rose’ as urged by the Department. Referring to the relevant invoices, he showed that they are using the brand name ‘New Rose’ and not ‘Rose’. In support of his contention, he referred to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Rukmani Pakkwell Traders v. CCE, Tricky reported in 1999 (109) E.L.T. 204 (Tribunal) wherein it was clearly held that “deceptively similar and not same trade mark of specified person used – moreover, trade mark used by appellant and specified person in respect of different classes of goods -Explanation 9 of Notification No. 1/93-CE not attracted.”
4. Heard Shri Narasimha Murthy for the Revenue. He justified the action of the Department in denying the benefit since these persons are using the brand name ‘Rose’.
5. On going through the facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the case law referred to by the Counsel, we are of the view that since the brand name ‘New Rose’ is different from the brand name ‘Rose’, it cannot be said that they are using the brand name of other person. Accordingly, we accept the plea of the party and appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.