Per V.K. Agrawal:

The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Chopra Appliances, is whether they were affixing the excisable goods, manufactured by them, with the brand name of another person, making them ineligible for the benefit of exemption from payment of duty under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dt. 28.2.1993.

2. Shri K.K. Anand, Id. Advocate, submitted that the Appellants manufacture LPG stoves under their own brand names 'Snap' and 'Trendy'; that along side these brand names, they were also mentioning 'A SKN Product' that since their goods were bearing their own brand names, they were availing the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. that however the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise, under Adjudication Order No. 83/97 dt. 26.11.1997 confirmed the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 2,37,819/-under Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act for the period from 1994-95 to 1996-97, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs and confiscated the goods worth Rs. 4,51,200/- seized from their premises with an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1 Lakh, holding that the brand name "SKN" belongs to M/s. SKN Gas Appliances, engaged in the manufacture of LPG stoves and the words "A SKN PRODUCT" tend to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the LPG stoves and M/s. SKN Gas Appliances Ltd. The ld. Advocate further, submitted that as they are manufacturing goods under their own brand name, provisions of Para 4 of Notification No. 1/93 are not applicable; that the words "A SKN Product" were written in small letters and were not prominent at all that these words indicate nothing in the course of trade; that the brand name of M/ s. SKN Gas Appliances is 'SKN' and not 'A SKN Product'; that any customer who would buy the stove would buy as 'SNAP' or 'TRENDY': that moreover the goods bear also their name as manufacturer. He also mentioned that as no sample of the impugned goods was shown to the Commissioner (Appeal), his findings in the impugned Order that 'a person looking at the gas stove may miss the brand name but cannot miss the Words "A SKN PRODUCT" is erroneous.

3. The Id, Advocate relied upon the decision in the case of C.C.E., Goa Vs. Christine Hoden (I) Pvt. Ltd., 1999 (28) RLT 619=1999 (113) ELT 591 (T) wherein it was held that "mere indication of the foreign company's name does not create any association in the course of trade between the goods and the foreign Com pany" when the goods are sold under the Trade name owned by the Manufacturer. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions:

(i) Palsons Drugs & Chemical Industries Vs. CCE, 1997 (23) RLT 265=1998 (98) ELT 665

(ii) Om Enterprises Vs. C.C.E., Pune, 2000 (118) ELT 127

(iii) Chemguard Coatings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Chennai, 1999 (34) RLT 560=2000 (116) ELT 43

(iv) Emkay Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, 1998 (28) RLT 36=2000 (124) ELT 741

(v) Dharni Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Trichy, 2000 (124) ELT 840.

4. Finally the ld. Advocate mentioned that extended period of limitation under Proviso to Section 11A (1) is not invokable as the appellants did not commit any fraud, mis-statement or suppression of facts; they had no intent to evade payment of duty as they were clearing the goods under their own brand name; that accordingly there was no reason for confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty; that in any case both redemption fine and penalty is very much on the higher side.

5. Countering the arguments, Shri M.P. Singh, ld. DR., submitted that it is not in dispute that the impugned goods manufactured by the appellants were affixed with words "A SKN Product"; that "SKN" admittedly is the brand name of M/s. SKN Gas Appliances Ltd.; that besides using brand name of another person, they have made a positive statement that the products manufactured by them are "SKN Products". The Id. DR, further, emphasised that the Appellants themselves in their appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) mentioned that they were one of the manufactu