ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. Heard both sides. The appellants have been denied benefit of the small-scale exemption on the ground that they are using the same brand name i.e. ‘KISHAN CEMENT’ which is allegedly used by another manufacturer. The Adjudicating Commissioner has, however, observed in Para 10 of the impugned order that what is depicted above the brand name is only a logo which may be different. He has proceeded on the basis that the brand name was same, while the logo and other particulars such as name and address on the packages may be different.
2. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that in a similar case, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras vide U.O.I v. Pillaiyar Soda Factory – 1992 (57) E.L.T. 261 (Mad.) has held that manufacturers using a deceptively similar but not the same trade mark cannot be denied exemption. It is also the case of the appellants that the said decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court has been followed in the case of Rukmani Pakkwell Traders v. CCE, Trichy – 1999 (109) E.L.T. 204 (Tribunal) and in many other cases.
3. After hearing both sides and perusal of case records including the cited case laws, we find that the name Kishan Cement appears in both cases but there are other differences in the logos used by the appellants. We are of the view that the appellants have made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty on the basis of the aforecited decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras and the cited decision of the Tribunal requiring trade mark/brand name to be same and not deceptively similar to attract the mischief of the disabling clause in the impugned notification. As such, we waive pre-deposit of the duty and penalty during pendency of the appeal.