Per Justice K. Sreedharan :

These seven appeals arise out of common Order-in-Original No. 25/98 dated 29.4.98 imposing penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on M/s. Rajdoot Paints Ltd., appellant in Appeal No. 2158/98-C. Appellant in Appeal No. 2159/98-C, M/s. Architect Paints Ltd. was directed to pay duty of Rs. 23,85,018/- and was also imposed penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/-. In the case of M/s. Spred Coatings (P) Ltd. appellant in Appeal No. 2160/98-C duty demanded was Rs. 43,53,521/- and penalty of Rs. 4,50,000/- M/s. Kanwar Paints, appellant in Appeal No. 2161/98-C was directed to pay Rs. 18,52,671/- by way of duty and Rs. 2 lakhs by way of penalty. Appellant in Appeal No. 2162/98-C, M/s. Ideal Coatings was found liable to pay Rs. 8,82,567/- by way of duty and Rs. 1 lakh as penalty. Against M/s. Harman Paints, appellant in Appeal No. 2163/98-C duty demanded was Rs. 17,84,744/- and penalty was Rs. 1,50,000/-. As against M/s. U.K. Paint Industries, appellant in Appeal No. 2164/98-C duty demanded was Rs. 4,70,671/- and penalty was Rs. 50,000/-.

2. Proceedings were initiated against the above mentioned seven appeals by issue of Show Cause Notice dt. 9.2.95. The period covered by the Show Cause Notice was from 1.4.90 to 31.3.94. During the above period, all these seven appellants claimed the benefit as an SSI Unit. According to the Show Cause Notice, they were wrongly availing the said benefit because they were not entitled to the benefit in view of Notification No. 223/87 dt. 22.9.1987. So the primary question to be dealt with in these appeals is whether the appellants were to be denied benefit as SSI Units by virtue of Notification No. 223/87 dt. 22.9.1987.

3. The relevant provision of the notification relied on by the Department for denying the benefit of exemption as SSI Unit is Clause 7 of Notification No. 223/87. For proper understanding of that Clause we read the same -

"7. The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under this notification :

Provided that nothing contained in this paragraph shall be applicable in respect of the specified goods cleared for home consumption before first day of October, 1987".

Explanation VIII. - "Brand name" or "trade name" shall mean a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say, a name or a mark, such as, 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'.

This shows that an SSI Unit if manufacture goods with the brand name or trade name of another who is not entitled to the exemption as an SSI Unit, is not entitled to get the benefit of such concession. If the trade mark used by the SSI unit which manufactures the goods belonging to another SSI unit entitled to the benefit of notification, then the manufacturers must get the benefit of exemption as SSI Unit. In the instant case, all these Small Scale Industrial Units where using trade name of "spred". They were also having `Glidden' printed on the product stating `in the technical collaboration with `Glidden' Company, U.S.A. The goods manufactured by all these appellants, thus having two marks affixed to the product. They were "spred" and "Glidden". Are both these marks trade marks, as is contended by the Department or one alone is a `trade mark' and the other `house mark' having two different connotations and legal consequences as contended by the assessees?

4. M/s. U.K. Paint Industries who are manufacturers of paint were manufacturing their products ever since 1963. They sought technical collaboration with M/s. SCM Glidden International Co., U.S.A. The s