Dr. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. - (1.) Both the above appeals are filed against the common judgment passed by the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta in Appeal Nos. E-246/92, E-279/92 and Order No. A-593-594 CAL /98 dated 9-6-1998 reported in 2000(124) E.L.T. 741. Both the appeals are against the same and common impugned judgment. Both the above appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as under : The respondents-M/s. Emkay Investments Private Limited and M/s. Plyking who are engaged in the manufacture of plywood classifiable under sub-Heading 4408.90 of the Schedule Act, 1985. The said factory was visited by the Central Excise Officers who found that the respondents are also using the brand/logo - MERINO - along with the brand name - Pelican - on the plywood being manufactured by them and the officers of the Department entertained a view that as the logo of MERINO is also being shown on the plywood being manufactured by them, apart from their own logo of Pelican and as the owner of the brand MERINO i.e. M/s. Merinoply and Chemicals Ltd., is a large scale manufacturer of plywood not entitled to the benefit of small scale exemption Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 1-3-1986, as amended, the respondents were also not entitled to the benefit of the said exemption Notification in view of clause 7 of the same. The second respondent - M/s. Plyking is one of the traders from whose premises plywood was seized by the officers of the Central Excise.
(3.) On adjudication, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta vide his impugned order held that the logo indicating MERINO in a specific manner was the brand name used by M/s. Merinoply and Chemicals Ltd. who were not eligible for the grant of benefit of Notification No. 175/86-CE and as such denied the benefit to the first respondent firm and accordingly confiscated the seized plywood. The officers also confiscated 223 pieces of plywood from the business premises of M/s. Plyking - the second respondent herein. The respondents as appellants contended before the authorities that though the word MERINO is written in the same style as written on the plywood manufactured by M/s. Merinoply and Chemicals Ltd., nevertheless the same will not imply any relation of goods by the respondents under the brand name of MERINO. They also submitted that the brand name of M/s. Merinoply and Chemicals Ltd. is TUFFPLY and MERINO.;