K.K. Usha, J. (President)

1. The issue raised in this appeal at the instance of the Revenue is whether the respondents have to be denied the benefit of Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-93, as amended as they are using the brand name and logo of M/s. Instrument Techniques Pvt. Ltd. (ITL) on their product.

2. The respondents are manufacturers of automatic electrical stabilizers falling under Chapter sub-heading 9032.80, They were availing the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 in respect of their goods. Show cause notice dated 13-11-96 was issued proposing to deny them the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 for the reason mentioned above. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand denying the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. On appeal by the assessee, Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the order passed by the adjudicating authority following the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in Weigand India (P) ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 124 (T). The above order is under challenge before us at the instance of the Revenue.

3. The respondents trade mark is "SARAT". Apart from showing its brand name "SARAT" in bold letters on the goods the following were also printed thereon :-

"A quality product from ITL, group"

"Technical licencee of ITL"

The Commissioner (Appeals) found both on the packing as well as on the product the mark "SARAT" distinctly shown. The name of the respondents firm Sarat Electronics is clearly printed and affixed on the product and its packing. It was found that the respondents were using brand name "SARAT" as early as from 1990 as is evidenced from the contract for supply to UNICEF vide purchase order dated 11-5-90. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), the expression "Technical Licensee of ITL" printed on the goods conveyed the idea that Instrument Techniques Pvt. Ltd. had supplied the technical know-how. It did not convey a meaning that the product was of Instrument Techniques Pvt. Ltd. The expression "A quality product from ITL Group" according to the Commissioner (Appeals) would not mean that the product is manufactured by Instrument Techniques Pvt. Ltd. This expression appears after the name of the respondent-manufacturer "SARAT ELECTRONICS". In the light of the above factual finding, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) followed the ratio of the decision in Weigand India (P) Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi.

4. It is contended on behalf of the appellant-Revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in applying the ratio of Weigand India (P) Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi to the facts of the present case. In Weigand India (P) Ltd., no brand name associated with the foreign collaborator was used by the assessee. Only a name plate stating goods manufactured in technical collaboration with the foreign company was used. The learned DR submitted that the decision of this Tribunal in Chopra Appliances v. CCE, Delhi - 2001 (132) E.L.T. 95 (Del.) would be directly applicable to the facts of the present case. He also pointed out that the above decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court as an appeal by the assessee was dismissed in 2002 (146) E.L.T. A216. In Chopra Appliances the assessee was a manufacturer of LPG stoves under their own brand name "SNAP OR TRENDY". Along side these brand names, they were also mentioning "A SKN Product". Brand name "SKN" belongs to M/s. SKN Gas Appliances who were also engaged in the manufacture of LPG stoves. The allegation was that the words "A SKN Product" tend to indicate a connection in the course of trade between LPG stoves and M/s. SKN Gas Appliances Ltd. The Tribunal took the view that the assessee is not entitled to benefit of Notification No. 1/93, in view of Paragraph 4 of the Notification which provides benefit of notification would not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixed them with a brand name or trade name of another person. As the brand name "SKN" appears along with other words on the product of the assessee irrespective of the fact that the letters used are smaller than used in mentioning their own brand name, the mischief of Paragraph 4 is attracted. While arriving at the above conclusion, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue in distinguishing three earlier decisions in Chemguard Coatings Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (116) E.L.T. 43, Om Enterprises v. CCE, Pune - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 127 and Dharani Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Tricky - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 840.

5. It is the case of the respondent-assessee that they are independent manufacturers using its brand name "SARAT". They received technical know-how for particular types of capacities of 0.2 KVA to 5 KVA from Instrumen; Techniques Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of an agreement. Their products manifestly carried their own trade mark name "SARAT" with its distinct style. Customers recognize the trade mark of the respondent as "SARAT". All the packings of the product and the products carry the name and address of the appellant distinctly with the trade mark "SARAT". The expression "Technical licences of ITL" would only go to show that the technical know-how was received from Instrument Techniques Pvt. Ltd. "ITL" is not used as a logo. It is used as a short form of the name of the company from whom technical assistance was received. The expression "A quality product from ITL Group" also would not in any way given the meaning that ITL is the manufacturer of the goods.

6. In Weigand India Pvt. Ltd., a name plate was affixed on the product declaring that the same was manufactured in technical collaboration with "GEA Wiegand GMBH West Germany". Following the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) ltd. v. Collector - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 214 (S.C.) the Tribunal took the view that reference to the circumstances that technical know-how was provided by somebody else, cannot be regarded as using the brand name of another person. In Chemguard Coatings Pvt. Ltd., the issue came up for consideration was whether the words "Produced under licence from Ameron USA" and "Marketed by Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd." would disentitle the assessee for the benefit of Notification No. 175/96 for the reason that brand name of another person was being used by the assessee. The Tribunal took the view that it will not. Reliance was placed on an earlier decision of this Tribunal in Nippa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector - 1998 (100) E.L.T. 490 (T). In Dharani Cement Ltd., apart from the trade mark of the manufacturer-assessee the packing contained the printed words "A subsidiary of Grasim Industries Ltd." The Tribunal took the view that it would not amount to showing the brand name or trade mark of another company.

6. In the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the expression "ITL" was used to convey the name of the company and not as a trade mark. It showed that the technical know-how was obtained from Instrument Techniques Pvt. Ltd. The expression "A quality product from ITC group" also would not mean that the product was manufactured by Instrument Techniques Pvt. Ltd. According to us, the facts of the case are more akin to the facts in Weigand India (P) Ltd. and Chemguard Coatings Pvt. Ltd. rather than Chopra Appliances.

7. In the light of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere with the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals). In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.