( 1 ) THESE appeals are against the judgment of the Customs, excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) dated 26th february, 1998. Briefly stated the facts are as follows : the respondents are traders in scented supari. They purchase scented supari in bulk from M/s. ARR Nutcon Products. Earlier they used to purchase from m/s. ARR Enterprise. The scented supari is marketed under the brand "arr" with a photograph of Shri AR Ramaswamy, the founder of ARR group of companies. The. respondents claimed benefit of Notification No. 1/93 CE dated 28-2-1993. The said Notification granted exemption, amongst others, to scented supari. However, CI. 4 of the Notification provides that the exemption contained in the Notification shall not apply to specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person. Explanation IX to this Notification reads as follows : "explanation IX : "brand name" or "trade name" shall means brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say a name or a mark, code number, design number, drawing number, symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person. "

( 2 ) THE respondents were issued show cause notice that their goods are not exempted under the said Notification. They filed the reply. However the assistant Collector confirmed the demand on the ground that they were not eligible to get exemption under the Notification. The appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals ). However, the tribunal has, by the impugned judgment, allowed the appeal of the respondents.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal has relied upon a Circular issued by the Central Board of central Excise bearing No. 213/41/88-CX 6 dated 30-12-1988 which, inter alia, purports to clarify as follows : "2. The facts of the case are that a small scale unit "a" are the owners of the trade mark "hotline" with respect to the commodity gas stoves. The same trade mark "hotline" is also owned by another company "b" for the commodity television. The company "b" was however not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986. The position thus was that the trade mark "hotline" was simultaneously owned by two manufactures, one eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 but not the other. The Assistant Collector denied the company "a" exemption under Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 on the ground that the trade mark/brand name belonged to the company "b" which was not eligible for the said exemption. For this the Assistant Collector relied on the amendment carried out to Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 by Notification no. 223/87 dated 22-9-1987 inserting paragraph 7 in the former notification.

( 4 ) THE matter has been examined by the Board. It is observed that as per s. 8 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, a trade mark can be registered in respect of any or all goods. In other words, a trade mark need not necessarily be in respect of all goods unless the registration has been so acquired. It is, therefore, quite possible and permissible to have the same trade mark/brand name for different classes of goods owned by different persons. In the instant case, the company "a" are the legal registered owners of the trade mark "hotline" in respect of gas stoves whereas the company

"b" are the registered owners of the same trade mark but for the commodity television. In that view, Notification No. 223/87 dated 22-9-1987 cannot be relied upon to deny the exemption to company "a" in respect of gas stoves manufactured under their own trade name brand name "hotline. " Therefore before denying a company benefit of SSI exemption by relying on Notification No. 223/87 da