Judgment:
1. Revenue is aggrieved with the Commissioner (Appeals)'s Order-in-Appeal No. 216/2002-C.E., dated 11-4-2002 wherein he has noted that the assessee had only used the name of the shops and customers viz, Best Bakers, Kacheripady, Best Bakery, Padma Junction, the Oven, Little House Super Market, Kaloor, etc. and had not used the brand name of any of the customers on the cartons in which the cakes had been packed. He has applied the ratio of the Tribunal judgment rendered in the case of Rajdoot Paints Ltd. v. CCE, New Delhi [2001 (134) E.L.T.281 (Tri. - Del.)] wherein it has been held that the house mark affixed on the product does not amount to using the brand name. Revenue is aggrieved with this order and contended that the use of brand name of another person has disentitled the assessee from availing the SSI exemption.
3. Ld. DR submits that once the brand name of another person has been used then they are not entitled to the benefit of Notification as held in the case of Cochin Soft Drinks Ltd. v. CCE, Cochin [1996 (86) E.L.T.275 (Tri.)] and that of the judgment rendered in the case of Crop Care Pesticides India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Chandigarh [2001 (137) E.L.T. 895 (Tri. -Del.)].
4. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Revenue has not alleged in the show cause notice about the specific use of any trade name. There-has to be a trade and brand name to be used which is registered or not and the goods should be identified by those names. He submits that no such trade name or brand name, which was identified with the goods was used and hence the judgment cited is not applicable to the facts of the case. He relied on the judgment rendered in the case of Voltarc India Pvt. Ltd. v. CC [2004 (172) E.L.T. 221 (T) = 2004 (63) RLT 58] wherein it has been held that if the company has used only a house mark then the appellants are not disentitled from eligibility of the Notification.
5. On a careful consideration and perusal of records, we are satisfied with the order passed by the Commissioner, which is just and proper. We have perused from the show cause notice that there is no allegation made out on the assessee as using the trade name or brand name. It is only stated that the assessee has put the mark on the cartons with the name of the customer viz, Best Bakers, Kacheripady, Best Bakery, Padma Junction, the Oven, Little House Super Market, Kaloor, Best Bakers, Kaloor, Best Bakers, Pachalam, Best Bakers, Thevera. The name of the customer cannot be considered as a trade name or a brand name. The trade name and brand name should be specific to the goods and the goods should be recognised in the trade with the brand name as noted by the Commissioner. There is no specific trade or brand name to the product but it is only the name of the customer, which has been affixed on the carton. Therefore, the judgments cited by the ld. DR is distinguishable as in those cases trade name and brand name was being used on the goods which was being identified in the market with the trade name and brand name. The judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Voltarc India Pvt. Ltd. applies to the facts of the case wherein it has been held that use of the name of a house mark is not a trademark. In the present case the appellants have put the name of the customers on the carton, which cannot be considered as a trade name or a brand name.
Therefore, there is no merit in this Revenue appeal and the same is rejected.