Per P.C. Jain :

The matter called. No one for the appellant. They have prayed for decision on merits. We have heard ld. SDR Shri D.S. Negi. We have gone through the impugned order and memo of appeal.

2. The question involved in the present case is whether the trade name Swift affixed by the appellants on the excisable goods manufactured by them and 95 per cent of such goods being sold through M/s. Swift Sales and Service could be treated as trade name within the meaning of para 7 of notification No. 175/86. In other words whether the benefit of said notification would be denied to the said goods.

3. It has been urged by the appellants in the appeal memo on the basis of affidavit from Swift Sales and Service that 'swift' is not a branded name or trade name of M/s. Swift Sales and Service. The appellant however had denied this evidence that 90 per cent of the sales had been made through Swift Sales and Service. However we have also taken note of the fact that prior to amendment of notification 175/86 by notification No. 223/87 and right up to 1.4.88, the appellant in its classification had mentioned the words 'swift' while giving description of the excisable goods. Later on however