Tracko International Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. this appeal is directed against the order-in-appeal, dated 30-6-1989.1.2 the appellants manufacture diesel engine parts and motor vehicle parts. the appellants claimed to be s.s.l undertaking duly registered with director of industries. they have been availing s.s.i, exemption under notification 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 as amended. excise authorities held that the goods bore trade mark or brand name of other manufacturers like kirloskar, escorts, etc. and therefore, appellants were not eligible to small scale exemption.2. arguing for the appellants, the ld. advocate submits that their goods both on themselves as well as packages permanently bear therr 'trade mark "tracko". the reference to other manufacturers like kirloskar, escorts is only for the purpose of identification. when they write escorts or kirloskar it is only for the purpose of indicating that these cylinders are for part make of kirloskar or escorts engine.the goods otherwise bear their brand-'name which is "tracko".displaying a sample in the court, the ld. advocate draws our attention to the legend "suitable for piauguts" and submits that the goods bear their brand name and reference to other manufacturers is only for the purpose of facilitating identification and indicating that the particular cylinder is suitable for use of particular model of engine of piauguts. he submits that they have indicated kirloskar or escorts just for identification and in any case, they have not at all entered into any contract with these manufacturers to market these goods under their brand name. they had indicated kirloskar and escorts etc. only to illustrate that the goods are suitable for a particular make of escorts or kirloskar.3. ld. d.r. reiterates departmental arguments and submits that price list through out refers to kirloskar and escorts, etc.4. we have heard both sides. in fact, on examining the price list placed at p-42 of the appeal papers, on which ld. dr has placed considerable emphasis, we find that the price list itself indicates as under :- "tracko suitable for" below 'suitable for' are indicated escorts 37, indac, ruston yda, etc. this clearly indicates that while they have given their brand name, they have referred to escorts, kirloskar, etc. only for the purpose of indicating that particular goods are suitable for particular makes of engines of escorts or kirloskar or others. in fact, the sample displayed in the court also indicates prominently the brand name tracko on all the package and has the following written : "suitable for piauguts bore 90m size stp" 5. in other words, it is very clear that reference to other manufacturers is only for the purpose of identification of the impugned goods for use with particular engines of other manufacturers.6. we are, therefore, satisfied that the appellants are not using brand name as such of other manufacturers but are indicating the name of other manufacturers not in any stylised form but only to indicate suitability of their product for use with a particular model of engine of other manufacturers. it has also been submitted by the ld. advocate that subsequently this concession has been extended to them and they have been continuing to avail s.s.i, exemption under the relevant notification.7. in view of this, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Judgment:
1. This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal, dated 30-6-1989.

1.2 The appellants manufacture diesel engine parts and motor vehicle parts. The appellants claimed to be S.S.L undertaking duly registered with Director of Industries. They have been availing S.S.I, exemption under Notification 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 as amended. Excise authorities held that the goods bore trade mark or brand name of other manufacturers like kirloskar, Escorts, etc. and therefore, appellants were not eligible to small scale exemption.

2. Arguing for the appellants, the ld. Advocate submits that their goods both on themselves as well as packages permanently bear therr 'trade mark "TRACKO". The reference to other manufacturers like Kirloskar, Escorts is only for the purpose of identification. When they write Escorts or Kirloskar it is only for the purpose of indicating that these cylinders are for part make of Kirloskar or Escorts engine.

The goods otherwise bear their brand-'name which is "TRACKO".

Displaying a sample in the Court, the ld. Advocate draws our attention to the legend "Suitable for piauguts" and submits that the goods bear their brand name and reference to other manufacturers is only for the purpose of facilitating identification and indicating that the particular cylinder is suitable for use of particular model of engine of piauguts. He submits that they have indicated Kirloskar or Escorts just for identification and in any case, they have not at all entered into any contract with these manufacturers to market these goods under their brand name. They had indicated Kirloskar and Escorts etc. only to illustrate that the goods are suitable for a particular make of Escorts or Kirloskar.

3. Ld. D.R. reiterates departmental arguments and submits that price list through out refers to Kirloskar and Escorts, etc.

4. We have heard both sides. In fact, on examining the price list placed at P-42 of the Appeal Papers, on which ld. DR has placed considerable emphasis, we find that the price list itself indicates as under :- "TRACKO suitable for" below 'suitable for' are indicated Escorts 37, Indac, Ruston YDA, etc. This clearly indicates that while they have given their brand name, they have referred to Escorts, Kirloskar, etc. only for the purpose of indicating that particular goods are suitable for particular makes of engines of Escorts or Kirloskar or others. In fact, the sample displayed in the Court also indicates prominently the brand name TRACKO on all the package and has the following written : "Suitable for piauguts bore 90M Size STP" 5. In other words, it is very clear that reference to other manufacturers is only for the purpose of identification of the impugned goods for use with particular engines of other manufacturers.

6. We are, therefore, satisfied that the appellants are not using brand name as such of other manufacturers but are indicating the name of other manufacturers not in any stylised form but only to indicate suitability of their product for use with a particular model of engine of other manufacturers. It has also been submitted by the ld. Advocate that subsequently this concession has been extended to them and they have been continuing to avail S.S.I, exemption under the relevant notification.

7. In view of this, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.