Full Judgment
Abilash Rubber Products and M/s. Navbharath Rubber Industries. The department initiated proceedings against the appellant and similar SSI units and denied the benefit of SSI exemption on the ground that the appellants had used the company mark 'IRP' (India Rubber Products) on the tyre flaps supplied to APSRTC. Learned Counsel submits that the appeal of M/s. Abilash Rubber Products and M/s. Navbharath Rubber Products was considered by this bench which is on the like issue on the basis of the same investigation and this bench was pleased to allow the appeals as there was no use of brand name IRP on the products. Learned Counsel furnishes a copy of Final Order Nos. 1883 to 1886/2005 dated 14-11-2005 2006 (197) E.L.T. 547 and submits that the issue being covered, the appeal could be disposed of in terms of the sited order.
Learned DR reiterated the departmental view.
2. On a careful consideration, we find that investigations were taken up against the appellants and similar SSI units. The other units had also procured sub-contract from M/s. India Rubber products for manufacturing tyre flaps. M/s. India Rubber products were the contractors for APSRTC and APSRTC desired M/s. IRP to put their name 'IRP' in initials for identification purposes. The contention is that there is no use of brand name on the products. This bench in the case of Abilash Rubber Products and Navbharath Rubber Industries vide Final Order Nos. 1883-1886/2005, dated 14-11-2005 2006 (197) E.L.T. 547 after detailed consideration has accepted the plea that there was no use of brand name or trade name. The statements were also examined. In the present case also, the statement of Shri C.T. Joseph authorized signatory of M/s. IRP has been relied. The finding recorded in paras 10 & 11 of the cited judgment is reproduced herein below.
On a careful consideration, it is seen from the statements of Shri K.K. Bala-chandar and Shri C.T. Joseph that both had not admitted the use of brand name or trade name. They had denied having supplied various branded goods to anyone including M/s. India Rubber Products for IRP brands. Shri K.K. Balachandar, GPA holder of the appellants unit denied having manufactured the IRP branded goods and supplied the same to M/s. India Rubber Products. The statement of Shri C.T. Joseph, the Authorized Signatory of M/s. India Rubber Products, also disclosed that they were supplying Precured Tread Rubber product to APSRTC. They put identification mark IRP on the Carton box/HDPE woven sacks in respect of Precured Tread Rubber, Tyre Flaps and Bonding Gum and in respect of Black Vulcanisng Solution/Cement, they stenciled their identification mark IRP along with other particulars. These IRP marks were required to differentiate their products with other suppliers by APSRTC to enable them to evaluate the performance of various products. From these details, it is very clear that the appellants had not used the brand name or trade name on the supply of the goods made to their principals viz. M/s. India Rubber Products. Shri C.T. Joseph of M/s. India Rubber Product also denied having manufactured and supplied goods with any brand name.
In terms of the request made by the APSRTC, they had only put an identification mark of IRP to enable APSRTC to evaluate the performance of various products. As the Revenue has not proved that the appellants had used the brand name or trade name of another person, after due examination, clearly noted all the judgments wherein similar question arose and the benefit had been given to the assessees. In the case of Konark Pumps & Presses Pvt Ltd (cited supra), it had been held that code numbers put on T.V. Cabinet manufactured by the appellant for the purpose of identification cannot be considered as using the brand name or trade name. In the case of Punchsheel Enterprises (cited supra), it had been held that markings put on product to distinguish the buyers are not trade mark/brand name particularly when such marks do not belong to any person in particular. In Deebha Foundry (cited supra), it had been held that when goods were supplied to P.S.G. Institute, by affixing it initials "P.S.G." on the product, it does not amount to attracting mischief of use of brand name in terms of the Notification. In the case of CCE v. Turnbull Control Systems (I) Ltd. (cited supra), it had been held that affixing of sticker of company's name will not bring within the ambit of the definition of 'brand name'. Therefore these judgments clearly apply to the facts of the case.
11. The learned SDR relied on the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. (cited supra). In this case, the trade name was being clearly used by the holding company and hence, the benefit was denied. "These facts are clearly distinguishable. In sum, all these appeals are allowed in the light of the judgments and findings recorded supra with consequential relief, if any.
3. As the issue is duly covered by the above citation, therefore, respectively following the ratio of the Tribunal ruling, the impugned order is set aside and stay and appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any.