ORDER
P.C. Jain, Vice President
1. Facts as available on record are as follows :-
2. The appellants herein are manufacturing Bisleri Club Soda and aerated water falling under Chapter 2201 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. It has been brought on record that another firm namely M/s. Aqua Minerals (P) Ltd., Ahmedabad is using the said brand name ‘Bisleri’ on mineral water and that brand name was registered in the name of Aqua Minerals.
3. Revenue denied the benefit of Notification 1/93-CE. to the appellants herein on the ground that mineral water is non-excisable and, therefore, Aqua Minerals (P) Ltd. is not eligible for SSI exemption for that product Bisleri Mineral Water. Consequently, it has been found by the Lower authorities that the appellants herein are hit by mischief of para 4 of the said Notification 1 /93 inasmuch as the brand name owner of Bisleri i.e. M/s. Aqua Minerals (P) Ltd. are not eligible for SSI exemption in view of the mineral water being non-excisable.
4. Opposing the aforesaid finding, ld. Advocate Shri K.K. Anand submits that on the plain reading of para 4 of Notification 1/93-C.E. the aforesaid finding is untenable. Under the said para the benefit of Notification 1/93 can be denied only if the specified goods (club soda here) are affixed with brand name of another person who is not eligible for grant of exemption under the said Notification 1 /93. Ld. Advocate submits that the eligibility has to be seen with reference to the entitlment for exemption. It is not disputed by the Revenue that Aqua Minerals (P) Ltd. is registered with SSI authorities and is, therefore, SSI Unit. It is, therefore, eligible for grant of exemption of mineral water natural or artificial. He submits mineral .water is also excisable falling under Tariff Heading 2201 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. Contention of the Revenue, therefore, is not correct.
5. On the other hand ld. JDR Shri V.M. Udhoji has reiterated the aforesaid finding of the Lower authorities. He also relies on Tribunal’s judgment in the case of Inter City Cable System (P) Ltd. v. C.C.E. reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. 445.
6. Opposing the contentions, the ld. JDR Shri K.K. Anand, ld. Advocate for the appellant in his rejoinder submits that the said judgment is not applicable because in that case brand name owner was not registered SSI Unit and it has been clearly held that it was not eligible for exemption.
7. We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. The question before us is not whether mineral water manufactured by Aqua Minerals (P) Ltd. is excisable or not. We observe as rightly pointed out by the ld. Advocate that mineral water, whether natural or artificial, is excisable. It is also on record that Aqua Minerals (P) Ltd. is admittedly registered SSI Unit. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve, as rightly pointed out by the ld. Advocate for the appellants, that the brand name owner of Bisleri i.e. Aqua Minerals (P) Ltd. is eligible for grant of exemption under this notification. Consequently, the mischief of para 4 will not come into play for denying the benefit of Notification 1/93-C.E. to the appellants herein. Hence we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.
