- (1.) The appellant herein has been denied the benefit of Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 on the ground that for manufacture of Detergent powder and cake it has been using brand name/trade name 'SKYLARK' which belong to one M/s. Vikshara Trading. For this purpose, the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') relied upon para 7 of the said Notification which reads as under :- "7. 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 (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under this notification : Provided that nothing contained in this paragraph shall be applicable to the specified goods which are component parts of any machinery or equipment or appliances and cleared from a factory for use as original equipment in the manufacture of the said machinery or equipment or appliances and the procedure set out in Chapter X of the said rules is followed. Provided further that nothing contained in this paragraph shall be applicable to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission or the State Khadi and Village Industries Board."
(2.) No doubt, when the brand name or trade name of another person is used by an SSI unit then the SSI unit shall not be entitled to the exemption from payment of Excise duty under the aforesaid Notification No. 175/86. However, what is relevant is that the other unit of whose brand name or trade name is used, should be a unit which is not eligible for grant of exemption under this Notification. In the present case, we find that M/s. Vikshara Trading itself was a SSI unit which has been claiming exemption and the same was allowed by the Tribunal in 'C.C.E., Ahmedabad v. Vikshara Trading and Investment Pvt. Ltd.' [1996 (87) E.L.T. 499] and the said judgment of the Tribunal has been upheld by this Court which is reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and hold that the appellant shall be entitled to the exemption under the aforesaid Notification. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Appeal Allowed ;