Per Shri T.P. Nambiar :

These are appeal Nos. E/SB/1373 & E/SB/1374. The Appeal No. E/1373 & 1374 are filed against the orders passed by the Collector (Appeals) in order No. 370/88 and 368/88. Since these two appeals arise out of the same order, we propose to dispose of the same.

2. As far as Appeal No. 1373/89 is concerned, it is the case of the department that the appellants are using the brand name of another company by using the following words while marketing their products:-

MANUFACTURED IN INDIA BY

NIPA CHEMICALS LTD.,

In collaboration with

Nihon Parkerizing Co. Ltd., Japan.

46, Garuda Buildings,

Cathedral Road

Chennai - 600 086

MARKETED IN INDIA BY

Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.,

GANPATRAO KADAM MARG

LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI - 400 013

FOR INDUSTRIAL USE ONLY

3. In Appeal No. E/1374 the case of the department is that the appellants are using the following brand name of another company who is not entitled for the benefit of notification NO. 175/86:-

Manufactured by

DREWTREAT CHEMICALS LIMITED

In Collaboration with

Drew Chemical Corporation, U.S.A.

Registered office : 46, Garuda Buildings,

Cathedral Road, Madras - 600 086

Marketed by:

Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd.,

Ganpatroa Kadam Marg,

Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400 013

Caution:

Corrosive Product

contact with skin, eyes and clothing

Nett. Wt. 35 Kgs.

Batch No.

Mfd.

FOR INDUSTRIAL USE

4. In the impugned order, the Collector (Appeals) held that the exemption contained in this notification was not applied to the specified goods where a manufacture affixes this specified goods with the brand or trade name of another person. He stated in the impugned order that the above markings which are reproduced above amount to a brand name. Therefore, he held that the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of the above said notification.

5. The learned advocate Shri Nasser Abdullah appearing for the appellants contended before us that the definition of "brand name" does not apply to the above said notification. He pointed out that the appellants in appeal No. 1373/89 has merely mentioned that the products are manufactured in India by "NIPA CHEMICALS LTD." in collaboration with "NIHON PARKERIZING CO. LTD., JAPAN." They also mentioned that the same is marketed in India by "GOODLASS NEROALC PAINTS LTD." of Bombay. It was therefore pointed out that these writings will not come within the purview of "brand name" for the purpose of the said notification NO. 175/86. He pointed out that the appellants only stated that these products are manufactured in collaboration with "NIHON PARKERIZING COL .LTD., JAPAN". They also mentioned that the same is marketed in India by "GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LTD." of Bombay. It was therefore pointed out that these writings will not come within the purview of "brand name" for the purpose of the said notification No. 175/86. He pointed out that he appellants only stated that these products are manufactured in collaboration with "NIHON PARKERIZING COL LTD., JAPAN" which is marketed by "GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LTD." of Bombay. It was therefore pointed out that these writings will not come within the purview of "brand name" for the purpose of the said Notification No. 175/86. He pointed out that the appellants only stated that these products are manufactured in collaboration with "NIHON PARKERIZING LO. LTD., JAPAN" which is marketed by "GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LTD." of Bombay in India and they do not come within the purview of definition of brand name. He stated that these words which are used by the appellants do not come within the pruview of definition of brand name. He stated that these words which are used by the appellants do not come within the purview of Name or Mark, such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invited word or writings which is used in relation to the specified gods. He, therefore, pointed out that the impugned orders are not in accordance with law and the denial of the benefit of notification 175/86 is not legal and proper.

6. Heard the learned JDR Shri s. Murugandy appearing f