The retrospective registration certificate did not confer exemption benefits under the excise law, as the appellant had wrongly used the trade mark of another person.

Judgment

S.H. KAPADIA, J. - Aggrieved by the decision of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) dated 11 - 4 - 2000, the appellant assessee have come by way of civil appeals under Section 35 - L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of biscuits classifiable under Sub - Heading 1905.11 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The biscuits were sold under the brand name "Meghraj". Under show - cause notices it was alleged that the appellants herein (the assessee) have sold the biscuits under the brand name "Meghraj", which was a registered trade mark of Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd. who was using the said trade mark on manufacture of biscuits themselves, and, therefore, the appellants were not eligible to the benefit of SSI Notification No. I/93 - CE dated 28 - 2 - 1993 as amended by Notification No. 59/94 - CE dated 1 - 3 - 1994. The above show - cause notices were issued by the Department demanding differential duty for the period April 1994 to June 1994 amounting to Rs 3,74,948 plus short - paid duty for the period April 1995 to May 1995 amounting to Rs 92,992. The said demand was based on an agreement detected by the Department. That agreement was between Madan Verma, Director of a company known as M/s Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd., Ghaziabad and M/s Rich Food Products (P) Ltd., Noida. Under the said agreement M/s Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd. was Party I. Under the agreement it was declared that M/s Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd. was the owner of the registered trade mark "Meghraj". Under the agreement it was stated that M/s Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd. was using the aforestated trade mark "Meghraj" for the manufacture of biscuits. Under the agreement there was a recital under which it was stated that M/s Rich Food Products (P) Ltd. had put up a unit for manufacture of wafers in Noida which it sought to manufacture under the brand name "Meghraj". Under the said agreement M/s Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd. gave permission to M/s Rich Food Products Pvt. Ltd. to use its trade mark for the manufacture of wafers alone. The said agreement was valid for three years commencing from 22 - 11 - 1989. At this stage, it may be noted that the appellants herein claim to have started manufacture of biscuits in 1991. The biscuits were sold in wrapper mentioning the name of the appellants, "M/s Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd." or "Meghraj". The appellants claimed that it has been using the wrapper since beginning and since 1991 the use of the trade name or brand name "Meghraj" has never been challenged. The Assistant Commissioner, Ghaziabad, examined the printed wrappers. He came to the conclusion vide his orders that the trade name "Meghraj" was in a the form of a logo printed on the wrapper of the biscuits and, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1193 - CE dated 28 - 2 - 1993 as amended by Notification No. 59/94 dated 1 - 3 - 1994. Consequently, the adjudicating authority called upon the appellants to pay differential duty for the period April 1994 to June 1994 amounting to Rs 3,74,948 plus short - paid duty for the period April 1995 to May 1995 b amounting to Rs 92,992.

3. Aggrieved by the decision of the adjudicating authority, the assessee preferred appeals to the Commissioner (A). The said appeals were rejected on the ground that the appellants were using the brand name "Meghraj" of another manufacturer M/s Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd. on their products (biscuits) and, therefore, they were not entitled to the benefit of exemption c under Notification No. 1I93 - CE, as amended. It was held that the word "Meghraj" was printed on all the printed wrappers and, therefore, it was wrong to say that the appellants were not using the brand name "Meghraj" on its products. In this connection, reliance was placed by the Commissioner (A) on the said agreement dated 22 - 11 - 1989. Before the Commissioner (A) the appellants herein contended that they had used the name