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