A.K. SIKRI, J.

1. The respondent no.1 M/s Minimax Industries is a partnership firm of which respondent no.2 is one of the partners. The respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as the, Partnership Firm) enjoys the status of Small Scale Industry for the purposes of Excise Act and is thus granted exemption from payment of excise duty under the said Act. It is manufacturing machines for production of wire and cables.

2. On 19th January, 2000, the Central Excise Officers visited the premises of the partnership firm with prior information that this firm was using brand/logo/trade name of „Minimax? which belonged to some other unit i.e. M/s Minimax Engineering Industries (hereinafter referred to as the „MEI?). The said Engineering Industries, a sole propriety concern of Mohd. Yamin is situated at 12, Krishna Kunj Market, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. The officers on enquiries found that in the machines manufactured by the partnership firm, the name „MINIMAX? is used alongwith the full name and address of the partnership firm i.e. M/s Minimax Industries, 93, Patparganj Industrial Area, Delhi-110092. Statement of respondent no.2 i.e. Sh. Liyakat Ali partner was recorded. Thereafter show-cause notice was issued to the partnership firm as to why the status of Small Scale Industries should not be withdrawn/cancelled and exemption be denied on the ground that the said partnership firm has violated the provisions of condition no.4 of the Notification No.1/93-CE as well as Notification No.8/99 CE. This condition no.4 stipulates that the exemption contained in the Notification would not be applied to the specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name (whether registered or not) of another person. Explanation-IX of the said Notification also defines the terms “Brand name” or “Trade name” to which we shall revert at the appropriate stage.

3. The partnership firm replied to the said show cause notice dated 5th July, 2001. In the detailed explanation submitted by the partnership firm, it was, inter alia, clarified as under:-

(1) MEI was the sole proprietorship concern of Mohd. Yamin who was brother of the partners of this partnership firm. Both the said MEI as well as the partnership firm were carrying on the business using the same trade mark „MINIMAX? and same logo in their own respective rights.

(2) The trade mark „Minimax? was used by the partnership firm with complete description of its own firm name as well as address. Likewise, in the products manufactured by MEI, the said proprietorship concern was using the trade name „Minimax? under its own name and address. Therefore, the partnership firm was not using the name of other concern/person.

(3) The logo „Minimax? was not covered by definition „brand name? or „trade name? as given in Notification No.8/2000 inasmuch as it did not indicate any connection between the goods manufactured by the partnership firm and MEI. Likewise, the logo ?Minimax? did not indicate any connection of the goods manufactured by MEI with the partnership firm as the name of manufacturer is prominently display right under the brand name or logo.

(4) The name „Minimax? did not belong to MEI as alleged in the so-cause notice and this assertion in the show-cause notice was baseless. The brand name „Minimax? was also not registered in the favour/name of MEI or its sole proprietor. In fact, during the course of investigation, both the partnership firm was as well as MEI had claimed that name „Minimax? belonged to them. Therefore, merely because MEI had also been using the same brand name for a period longer than the partnership concern, it would not follow that the partnership firm was using the brand name of the said MEI.

4. The adjudicating authority after considering the aforesaid reply of the partnership firm and the submissions made at the time of hearing, returned the finding that the brand name „Minimax? belongs to MEI which was using the same since 1980 and, therefore, condition no.4 as provided in Notificatio