- (1.) These appeals are against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) dated 26th February, 1998. Briefly stated the facts are as follows : The respondents are traders in scented supari. They purchase scented supari in bulk from M/s. ARR Nutcon Products. Earlier they used to purchase from M/s. ARR Enterprise. The scented supari is marketed under the brand "ARR" with a photograph of Shri AR Ramaswamy, the founder of ARR group of Companies. The respondents claimed benefit of Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28-2-1993. The said Notification granted exemption, amongst others, to scented supari. However, Cl. 4 of the Notification provides that the exemption contained in the Notification shall not apply to specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person. Explanation IX to this Notification reads as follows : "Explanation IX : - "Brand name" or "trade name" shall means brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say a name or a mark, code number, design number, drawing number, symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods 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."
(2.) The respondents were issued show cause notice that their goods are not exempted under the said Notification. They filed the reply. However the Assistant Collector confirmed the demand on the ground that they were not eligible to get exemption under the Notification. The appeal filed by the respondents was dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal has, by the impugned judgment, allowed the appeal of the respondents.
(3.) xx xx xx;