In the Rectification Application it was further pointed out that in fact the appellants had applied for ownership of the brand name Meghraj vide application dated 30.9.91 to the Registrar, Trade Marks under the Trade Marks Act and that the said application for registration was pending before the companypetent authority and since the above arguments were number recorded in the impugned Order of the CEGAT dated 11.4.2000 the same warranted rectification.
That Agreement was between Madan Verma, Director of a companypany known as M s. Kay Aar Biscuits P Ltd., Ghaziabad, and M s. Rich Food Products P Ltd., Noida.
By Order dated 8.12.2000, CEGAT rejected the above Rectification Application made by the Appellants.
Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of biscuits classifiable under Sub Heading 1905.11 of the Central Excise Tariff.
The said demand was based on an agreement detected by the Department.
Under the Agreement it was declared that M s. Kay Aar Biscuits P Ltd. was the owner of the registered trade mark Meghraj.
In that application it was urged on behalf of the appellants herein that the said brand name Meghraj did number belong to M s. Kay Aar Biscuits P Ltd. that the Department has failed to discharge its burden to prove that the trade name Meghraj belonged to M s. Kay Aar Biscuits P Ltd. that a mere Agreement between M s. Kay Aar Biscuits P Ltd. and M s. Rich Food Products P Ltd. would number be sufficient to prove that M s. Kay Aar Biscuits P Ltd. was the lawful owner of the brand name Meghraj.
It was held that the word Meghraj was printed on all the printed wrappers and, therefore, it was wrong to say that the appellants were number using the brand name Meghraj on its products.
The biscuits were sold under the brand name Meghraj.
Since, the appellants herein had used the trade name Meghraj on their products which trade name was owned by M s. Kay Aar Biscuits P Ltd. the appellants were number entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No.1/93 CE, as amended.
Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority called upon the appellants to pay differential duty for the period April 1994 to June 1994 amounting to Rs.3,74,948 plus short paid duty for the period April 1995 to May 1995 amounting to Rs.92,992.
The above show cause numberices were issued by the Department demanding differential duty for the period April 1994 to June 1994 amounting to Rs.3,74,948/ plus short paid duty for the period April 1995 to May 1995 amounting to Rs.92,992.
Under show cause numberices it was alleged that the appellants herein assessee have sold the biscuits under the brand name Meghraj, which was a registered trade mark of Kay Aar Biscuits P Ltd. who was using the said trade mark on manufacture of biscuits themselves, and, therefore, the appellants were number eligible to the benefit of SSI Notification No.1/93 CE dated 28.2.1993 as amended by Notification No.59/94 CE dated 1.3.1994.
This argument was rejected by the Commissioner A saying that the appellants were using the brand name Meghraj on their products.
To companyplete the chronology of events, it may be pointed out that after the impugned decision of the Tribunal dated 11.4.2000, the appellants herein moved an Application for Rectification on 12.5.2000 ROM No.72/2000 .
Under the said Agreement M s. Kay Aar Biscuits P Ltd. was Party No.1.
The said agreement was valid for three years companymencing from 22.11.1989.
Hence, these civil appeals.
Ltd. to use its trade mark for the manufacture of wafers alone.
Under the Agreement there was a recital under which it was stated that M s. Rich Food Products P Ltd. had put up a Unit for manufacture of wafers in Noida which it sought to manufacture under the brand name Meghraj.
Under the said Agreement M s. Kay Aar Biscuits P Ltd. gave permission to M s. Rich Food Products Pvt.
This companytention was rejected by the Commissioner A on the ground that under the Notification No.1/93 CE, as amended, exemption was number available to the specified goods bearing brand name or trade name registered or number of another person.
In this companynection, reliance was placed by the Commissioner A on the said Agreement dated 22.11.89.
Under the Agreement it was stated that M s. Kay Aar Biscuits P Ltd. was using the aforestated trade mark Meghraj for the manufacture of biscuits.
Accordingly, the Commissioner A dismissed the appeals.
The Assistant Commissioner, Ghaziabad, examined the printed wrappers.
According to the Commissioner A , the appellants used the trade name Meghraj in the form of a logo which was printed on the wrapper.
Before the Commissioner A the appellants herein companytended that they had used the name M s. Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd. on the wrapper and number on the product and, therefore, they were entitled to exemption.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Adjudicating Authority, the assessee preferred appeals to the Commissioner A .
The said appeals were rejected on the ground that the appellants were using the brand name Meghraj of another manufacturer M s. Kay Aar Biscuits Ltd. on their products biscuits and, therefore, they were number entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No.1/93 CE, as amended.
KAPADIA, J. Aggrieved by the decision of Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal CEGAT dated 11.4.2000, the appellants assessee have companye by way of civil appeals under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
He came to the companyclusion vide his orders that the trade name Meghraj was in the form of a logo printed on the wrapper of the biscuits and, therefore, the appellants were number entitled to the benefit of Notification No.1/93 CE dated 28.2.93 as amended by Notification No.59/94 dated 1.3.94.
The orders of the Commissioner A have been companyfirmed by Order dated 11.4.2000 passed by CEGAT.
