R.SUDHAKAR,J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal [2008 (230) E.L.T. 185 (Tribunal)] in dismissing the appeal filed by it, the Department/appellant is before this Court by filing the present appeal.
(2.) The case was admitted by this Court on 16-12-2010. However, no question of law appears to have been framed, but notice was issued. After hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent, we find that the issue, which has been canvassed by the Revenue before this Court is primarily factual in nature challenging the finding of fact and there appears to be no substantial question of law arising for consideration.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent-assessee was clearing their goods, viz., refined groundnut oil, sunflower oil and palm oil using the logo "S.V.S. and SONS". The Assistant Commissioner was of the view that S.V.S. and Sons was a brand name and, accordingly, extended the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002, dated 1-3-2002 and the benefit of 'Nil' duty was extended. In this case, the company registered as brand name/trademark S, V and S in a rectangular box. On review, the Commissioner directed the Department to file an appeal and on the said appeal filed by the Department, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of the original authority granting benefit of the notification and, accordingly, rejected the appeal. The Department, aggrieved, preferred further appeal to the Tribunal, which was also dismissed the appeal by recording a finding of fact. For better clarity, the relevant portion of the order is set out hereunder :- "2. In the present appeal, the Revenue has relied on the Apex Court's judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders - 2004-TIOL-51-SC-CX. In addition, the learned Jt. CDR has relied on Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy v. Grasim Industries Ltd. - 2005 (183) E.L.T. 123 (S.C.). The cited decisions were on what could constitute a 'brand name' or 'trade name' for purposes of SSI exemption notifications. It is pointed out by the learned Jt. CDR that the definition of 'brand name' given at Sl. No. 244 in the Table annexed to Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. ibid is materially the same as the definition of brand name/trade name given in the SSI exemption notifications considered by the Apex Court in the cited cases. The learned consultant has argued in defence of the impugned order. He has also placed on record a copy of registration certificate issued by the Trade Marks Registry, which indicates that a combination of the alphabets S, V and S, each enclosed in a rectangular box, was registered as a trade mark for the respondents apparently with effect from July, 1987. 3. After considering the submissions, we find that during the period of dispute, the respondents had been using the combination of the alphabets, S, V and S, - each enclosed in a rectangular box - as their brand name/trade mark and this was got registered by the Trade Marks Registry. The superscription on the product label used by the respondents during the period of dispute was "S.V.S. and SONS" and not the above brand name/trade mark. The superscribed words simply represented the name of the respondents, viz., S.V. Sivalinga Nadar and Sons, and nothing else. The findings of the lower authorities that these markings on the product label did not constitute any brand name is perfectly justifiable." Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Revenue is before this Court by filing the present appeal. ;