Per K. Sankararaman : Shri G. Shiv Dass, learned Counsel for the appellants, M/s. Taj Serpent Eggs Factory States that two issues are involved in the present appeal. The first question is whethertheirproduct (serpent Eggs) classifiable as fire works. The department has held the same to be fire works and since they have used the brand name 'cock' for their aforesaid product and since that brand name 'cock' is the property of Sri Kaliswari Fireworks, they were held to be not eligible for the benefit of ( Notification No. 1/93.

2. On the first point, the learned Counsel stated that the issue now stands concluded by the Tribunal decision in M/s. Taj Fireworks Industries versus Collector of Central Excise, Madurai reported in 1995 (76) ELT 180. It was held therein that Serpent Egg when set on fire produces ash form of snake in midst of negligible smoke. That was only an pyrotechnic article and no fireworks. He was initially of the view that though this issue stands concluded in their favour in view of the aforesaid decision, the second issue also requires to be decided. On the Bench enquiri ng about the decisions in regard to the brand name of products which are not those of the products which are the subject matter of dispute, he referred to the Tribunal decision in Precise Electronics V. CCE reported in 1993 (65) ELT 69. Clarifying this decision, the learned Counsel stated that in the aforesaid case of Precise Electronics the brand name 'Master Piece' was used by the appellants on clocks whereas that brand name belonged to another manufacturer who was manufacturer of watches.. It was held that the said facts did not disentitle the appellants to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 as the particular brand name was with reference to the different product and not for the one which was manufactured by the appellants. He submitted that the ratio of this decision will apply in the present case and accordingly the fact that the brand name 'cock' was the property of another manufacturer, namely, Sri Kaliswari fireworks will not come in the way of their availing exemption for their products, Serpent Egg which were different from the products made by the other manufacturer of fireworks. In view of this, he submitted that they have the decisions in their favour and accordingly the appeal may be allowed.

3. Shri J.P. Singh, learned Departmental Representative while reiterating the contentions contained in the impugned order fairly conceded that the issue of classification and the identity of the product for purposes of classification stands covered by the Tribunal decisions.

4. We have considered the submissions. We have perused the records and the authorities cited. We agree with the submissions made by the learned Counsel that their case is fully covered by both the decisions cited by him. Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the order appealed against.