Per P.K. Kapoor : These appeals have been filed against the orders passed by the Collector Central Excise, Ahmedabad. Since the issues arising for consideration in these cases are identical, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The appellant firms are engaged in the manufacture of Fibre Glass Fabrics, Poly-tetrafloro Ethylene (PFTE) coated Fibre Glass Fabrics and PFTE coated Fibre Glass Tapes falling under Sub-heading 7014.00 and 3910.00 respectively of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff ACt, 1985. 'PTFE' used for coating of Fibre Glass Fabrics and Tapes is imported from M/s. E. I. Dupont. De Nemours and Co., U.S.A. who market it under the trade name 'Teflon'. The appellants held a Central Excise licence and were availing the SSI exemption in terms of notification No. 175/86 dated 1^3-86 as amended, During their visit to the appellants' factories on 17-9-90 the Central Excise offices verified their records and also recorded the statement of Shri Balkrishna A Sharrija, Commercial Executive and Shri Janak G. Nanavati, partner of the firm. Afterburner investigations both the appellant firms were served with the show cause notices dated 2-7-91 alleging that they were not entitled for the benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No. 175/86 as amended, since they were affixing the brand name 'TEFLON' of M/s. E.L Dupont of U.S.A. who were not entitled for exemption under the Notification No. 175/86-CE on the packings of their goods as well as different documents/The show cause notices further alleged that the appellants had contravened the provisions of Rule 173-B,-9 (1) read with Rule 173-Farid 173-G inasmuch as they had failed to file the correct classification list and thereby if ailed to determine and pay the correct Central Excise duty. Oh these grounds M/s. Unnati Corporation and M/s. Unnati Industries were asked to show cause as to why duty amounting to Rs. 37,74,734/- and Rs. 29,1 lj612/- respectively for the period September/1987 to November 1990 should not be recovered oh the excisable goods cleared by them under Rule 9 (2) of the Central Excise Rules, read with Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The show cause notices also alleged-that the short low had occurred on account of fraud, wilful suppression of facts on the part of the appellants with the intent to evade duty. The appellants were, therefore, required to show cause. why penalty should not be imposed on each of the firms and on Shri Janak K. Nanavati, partner under Rule 290A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The appellants denied the allegations and. in particular they contended that all their activities had been within the knowledge of the department. They claimed that 'Teflon' coated glass fabrics were cleared in the form of rolls in plain brown paper without affixing any brand name and the word 'Teflon' used on cartons in which adhesive tapes were packed was the trade mark of the foreign company in relation to the material used for coating of the glass cloth and not in relation to coated fibre glass tapes. On these grounds they contended that the goods could not be deemed as bearing the trade mark of any other person. However, by the impugned orders the Collector rejected the appellants Contentions and confirmed the demands. He also imposed various amounts of penalties on the firms and Shri Janak G. Nanavati of the partners of the firms.

3. On behalf of the appellants Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, ld. Advocate appeared before us. He submitted that the Collector had erred in holding that the appellants were not eligible for the benefit of the small scale exemption notification No_: 175/86 dated 1-3-86 as amended by notification No. 223/87 dated 22-9-87 virtue of clause 7 read with explanation VIII of the said notification on the ground that they had used on the disputed products the brand name of a foreign company which was not eligible for the grant of exemption under the notification. He stated that as far as Teflon coated