( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) dated 30/4/2001. The question before the Tribunal was whether the respondents are entitled to exemption of Notification No. 8/98-CE dated 2/6/1998. Under this notification certain goods were exempted from payment of excise duty. However, the exemption was not available if the goods bore a brand name or trade name (whether registered or not) of another person. Explanation to the notification defines the brand name as follows: "explanation.-FOR the purposes of this notification (A) brand name or trade name shall mean a brand name or trade name whether registered or not, that is to say, a name or a mark, such a 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 ) IT is an admitted position that the respondents are part of a group of companies which are: (a) M/s Mahaan Foods Ltd. , (b) M/s Mahaan Proteins Ltd. , and (c) M/s Mahaan Dairies Ltd. Of course it is claimed that they are all independent companies having different Board of Directors and different shareholders. That may be, but the question is whether or not the respondents have used the brand name or trade name of some other company. ( 3 ) IT is admitted that the word "mahaan" written in a distinctive style is a registered trade mark of M/s Mahaan Foods Ltd. The respondents manufacture pickle which is sold in packs bearing the name of "mahaan" in exactly the same style as the registered trade mark of the other company. However, the words "taste Maker" are added. The respondents also sell pickle in pouches wherein only the name of their own company, namely, M/s Mahaan Dairies Ltd. is printed. ( 4 ) ALL the authorities below have held that when the respondents sell pickle in pouches using only the name of their own company they would not be disentitled from claiming the benefit of the notification. We see no reason to take a different view on this aspect. ( 4 ) ALL the authorities below have held that when the respondents sell pickle in pouches using only the name of their own company they would not be disentitled from claiming the benefit of the notification. We see no reason to take a different view on this aspect. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, the respondents also sell pickle with the name "mahaan" written in exactly the same style as a registered trade mark of other company. The question would be whether by adding the words "taste Maker" the respondents could get the benefit of the notification. ( 6 ) WE have today delivered a judgment in CCE v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders1 wherein we have held in respect of another notification containing identical words that it makes no difference whether the goods on which the trade name or mark is used are the same in respect of which the trade mark is registered. Even if the goods are different, so long as the trade name or brand name of some other company is used the benefit of the notification would not be available. Further, in our view, once a trade name or brand name is used then mere use of additional words would not enable the party to claim the benefit of the notification. ( 7 ) SUCH a view has been taken by the Tribunal in the case of Festo Controls (P) Ltd. v. CCE2, We approve that decision. ( 8 ) IT is settled law that in order to claim benefit of a notification, a party must strictly comply with the terms of the notification. If on wording of the notification the benefit is not available then by stretching the words of the notification or by adding words to the notification benefit cannot be conferred. The Tribunal has based its decision on a decision delivered by it in Rukmani Pakkwell Traders v. CC. We have already overruled the decision in that case. In this case also we hold that the decision of the Tribunal is unsustainable. It is accordingly set aside. ( 9 ) IT was, however, urged that the respondents have applied for registration of the mark "mahaan Taste Maker". We clarify that if and when they get their mark registered then they would become entitled to the benefit of the notification in accordance with the Boards Circular No. 88/88 dated 13/12/1988. It is accordingly set aside. ( 9 ) IT was, however, urged that the respondents have applied for registration of the mark "mahaan Taste Maker". We clarify that if and when they get their mark registered then they would become entitled to the benefit of the notification in accordance with the Boards Circular No. 88/88 dated 13/12/1988. The appeals shall stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.