V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)

1. The Miscellaneous application seeks for correcting some typographical errors in the grounds of appeal pertaining to the name of the company.

2. After hearing both sides and verification, the Miscellaneous application is allowed.

3. This appeal is against the Order-in-Appeal No. 369/88, dated 21-2-1989 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) denying the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 on the ground that the appellants were using the brand name of another person was not entitled for the benefit of SSI Notification.

4. Vide our Miscellaneous Order No. 555/99, dated 16-6-1999, the Miscellaneous Order No. 850/97, dated 11-9-1997 was ordered to be recalled and listed for hearing today.

5. We have heard Shri Nazeer Abdullah, learned Advocate for the appellants and Sri S. Sankaravadivelu, learned JDR.

6. The learned Advocate submits that the Tribunal had made an error in treating the words "Produced under licence from: Ameron U.S.A." as well as the words "Marketed by Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd." as pertaining to a brand name as explained under explanation to Notification No. 175/86 because both these legends merely referred to the name of two companies namely name of the company who had supplied the technology under licence for its manufacture by the appellants and the name of the company which was marketing the goods after they were cleared from the appellants factory. He submits that the matter is no longer res integra as the Honble Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 2437-2438/97, dated 11-9-1997 [1998 (100) E.L.T. 490 (T)] in the case of Nippa Chemicals (Pvt.) Ltd. and Ors. had held that by mentioning the name of the foreign collaborator as well as Indian marketing company, the goods cannot be said to bear symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word etc. which would fall under the definition of brand name. He also submitted that a similar view was held in the case of Astra Pharmaceuticals Ltd. as reported in 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214, wherein it has been also similarly held that product mark is different from house mark and that the latter would only be concerned with the name of the company, whereas the former would be the brand name.

7. Heard learned D.R., who reiterates the Order-in-Appeal impugned.

8. On a careful consideration of the rival submissions and records of the case, we find that the matter is no longer res integra, as this issue has been decided under the citations noted supra. We find in this case a perusal of the label shows that the words "Ameron U.S.A." pertained to name of the company, which has supplied the technology and has licenced the present appellants to manufacture the same in accordance with the technology. This is the name of the company i.e. house mark, and not a brand name. Similarly, the product is being marketed by Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd., which is also name of the company and can by no stretch of imagination be called as brand name. Therefore, applying the ratio of the above cited decisions to the facts of the present case, we find that there is a great merit in this appeal and the Or-der-in-Appeal impugned is, therefore, set aside and the appeal allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law.