Per S.L. PEERAN:

In all these appeals common questions of facts and law is involved, hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.

2. In Appeal No. E/3986 & 3987/90-B1 the appellant has challenged the impugned order passed by Collector (Appeals), New Delhi, and against non-grant of benefit of exemption Notification No. 175/86-CE dt. 01.03.86 as amended as per its clause 7.

3. In Appeal No. E/5593/92-B1 the Collector (Appeals) has remanded the matter for the purpose of working out the correct amount of differential duty chargeable for both the show cause notices issued against the appellants.

4. Appeal No. E/1395/93-B1 arises from Order-in-Appeal No. 216-CE/DLH/93 date 10/5/93 by which the Collector (Appeal) has dismissed the appeals, as not maintainable, in view of the fact that the Assistant Collector has only worked out the demand of duty in Compliance of the order of the Collector (Appeals). He has held that since the appellants did not dispute the amount of demand, they cannot claim to be aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector.

5. The question that arises for our consideration in these appeals is the grant of benefit of exemption of Notification No. 175/86-CE date. 1/3/86 in terms of para 7 of the said notification.

6. The appellants were issued with a show cause notice date 21/4/1988. In this show cause notice it has been alleged that the appellants are engaged in the manufacturing of punching & binding machines brand name of Central Binding corporation 450 km. laminature/Laminating Maching Brank/Model GBC 419 LM 363 LM falling under heading No. 84.72/Sub-heading No. 8472.00 under the brand name of General Binding Corporation. They have filed a classification list date 1/12/1987 and claimed exemption under the above said Notification from time to time. The GBC brand of the product was found not to be of the appellants but they were using the brand name "GBC" of General Binding corporation, who are noteligible to avail exemption under the said notification. Therefore, it has been alleged that the goods manufactured with the said brand name were not entitled to avail of the exemption under para 7 of the said notification which reads:

"The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (register nor not) of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under this notification."

Further the term "Brand Name has been defined as under:-

"Brand Name" or "trade name" mean a brand name of trade name, whether registered or not that is to say a name or a mark, such as symbol, monogram, label signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified good for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person."

There is also a question pertaining to assessment and valuation, but as the same has not been challenged before us, hence those facts are not noted herein. The Assistant Collector after granting an opportunity of hearing, has upheld the contents of the show cause notice. On appeal, the collector (appeals) has also confirmed the order. He has held that there is no dispute that "GBC" is trade name of M/S. General Binding Corporation, USA, who are not eligible for the grant of exemption under the said notification. Therefore, the 1 d. Collector has held that the benefit has been rightly denied to the appellants.

7. We have heard Sh. V. Sridharan, ld. advocate for the appellants and Sh. S.K. Sharma and Sh. K.K. Dutta ld. JDRS for the revenue. Ld. advocate referred to the agreement entered into by the appellants M/S. G.B.C., USA. The preamble of the agreement states as follows:

"Whereas GBC is the owner of a Registered Trade Mark namely "GBC" in a number of countries including India.

And whereas GBC in ord