Per Justice K.K. Usha : The issue raised in this appeal at the instance of the Revenue is whether the respondents have to be denied the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.2.93, as amended as they are using the brand name and logo of M/s. Instrument Techniques Pvt. Ltd. (ITL) on their product.

2. The respondents are manufacturers of automatic electrical stabilizers falling under Chapter sub-heading 9032.80. They were availing the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 in respect of their goods. Show cause notice dated 13.11.96 was issued proposing to deny them the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 for the reason mentioned above. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand denying the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner (Appeals) reversed the order passed by the adjudicating authority following the ratio of the decision of this Tribunal in Weigand India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, New Delhi 1997 (21) RLT 386 (CEGAT) =1997 (94) ELT 124 (T). The above order is under challenge before us at the instance of the Revenue.

3. The respondents' trademark is "SARAT". Apart from showing its brand name "SARAT" in bold letters on goods the following were also printed thereon:-

"A quality product from ITL, group"

"Technical licences of ITL"

The Commissioner (Appeals) found both on the packing as well as on the product the mark "SARAT" distinctly shown. The name of the respondents' firm Sarat Electronics is clearly printed and affixed on the product and its packing. It was found that the respondents were using brand name "SARAT' as early as from 1990 as is evidenced from the contract for supply to UNICEF vide purchase order dated 11.5.90. According to the Commissioner (Appeals), the expression "Technical Licence of ITL" printed on the goods conveyed the idea that Instrument Techniques Pvt. Ltd. had supplied the technical know-how. It did not convey a meaning that the product was of Instrument Techniques Pvt. Ltd. The expression "A quality product from ITL Group" according to the Commissioner (Appeals) would not mean that the product is manufactured by Instrument Techniques Pvt. Ltd. This expression appears after the name of the respondent-manufacturer "SARAT ELECTRONICS". In the light of the above factual finding, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) followed the ratio of the decision in Weigand India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE New Delhi.

4. It is contended on behalf of the appellant-Revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in applying the ratio of Weigand India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE New Delhi to the facts of the present case. In Weighand India (P) Ltd. no brand name associated with the foreign collaborator was used by the assessee. Only a name plate stating goods manufactured in technical collaboration with the foreign company was used. The learned DR submitted that the decision of this Tribunal in Chopra Alliances Vs. CCE, Delhi 2001 (44) RLT 832 (CEGAT-Del.)=2001 (132) ELT 95 (Del.) would be directly applicable to the facts of the present case. He also pointed out that the above decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court as an appeal by the assessee was dismissed in 2002 (146) ELT 216 (sic). InChopra Appliancesthe assessee was a manufacturer of LPG stoves under their own brand name "SNAP OR TRENDY". Along side these brand names, they were also mentioning "A SKN Product". Brand name "SKN" belongs to M/s. SKN Gas Appliances who were also engaged in the manufacture LPG stoves. The allegation was that the words "A SKN Product" tend to indicate a connection in the course of trade between LPG stoves and M/s. SKN Gas Appliances Ltd. The Tribunal took the view that the assessee is not entitled to benefit of Notification No. 1/93, in view of paragraph 4 of the Notification which provides benefit of notification would not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixed them with a brand name or trade name of another person. As the brand name "SKN" appears along with other words on the product of the assessee irresp