ORDER : 1. This is a statutory appeal filed under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short "the Act") against the impugned Final Order No. C-III/1224/03-WZB/2003, dated 2nd of September, 2003 passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai, (for short "the Tribunal") in Appeal No. E/705/02 dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The Tribunal held that the assessee-company was not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 1st March, 1993. The said Notification prescribes concessional rate of duty for the goods manufactured by a Small Scale Industry (SSI). Paragraph 4 of the Notification, which reads thus : "The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods, bearing a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person." 2. M/s. General Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant herein) are, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of textile chemicals, namely; (a) Amigen; Amigen-R; Amigen Conc.50; Amigen Conc.; Amigen 60; Amigen A; Amigen NF; (b) Daikanal AMH; Daikanal AMH Spl., (c) Sorgen 80; Sorgen 85; Sorgen RP, (d) Noigen Pean, (e) Sigum F and (f) Daikamine DHV. The assessee-company is manufacturing the goods mentioned above at Sl. Nos. (a), (b), (c) and (d) from the year 1986 onwards while those mentioned at Sl. Nos. (e) and (f) from 1990 and 1989 onwards respectively. 3. The assessee-company being an SSI Unit claimed the benefit under the above Notification in respect of the above goods manufactured and cleared by them. The assessee was served with a show cause notice denying the benefit of the Notification on the allegation that it was manufacturing the goods, namely, Amigen, Daikanol, Sorgen, Noigen and Sigum and cleared the said goods which were bearing the brand names and trade marks of M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. on the presumption that the names of the said products belong to M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. Thus, duty was sought to be recovered from and penalty imposed on the assessee-company. 4. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee-company filed its reply on 14th August, 2000 stating therein that the aforesaid products, namely, Amigen, Daikanol, Sorgen, Noigen and Sigum are product names only and any manufacturer thereof will call them by the said names throughout the country. 4. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee-company filed its reply on 14th August, 2000 stating therein that the aforesaid products, namely, Amigen, Daikanol, Sorgen, Noigen and Sigum are product names only and any manufacturer thereof will call them by the said names throughout the country. It was submitted that under the circumstances, it could not be alleged and proved that these are trade names belonging to M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. It was further submitted that M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. had stopped producing the above goods and was not using he said trade names for the last fifteen years and it was the assessee-company which was using the said trade mark for the last fifteen years and therefore it was entitled to exemption under the aforesaid Notification. 5. Out of the six products named above, Diakanol, Diakamin and Noigen are registered trade marks of M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd. The remaining three products, i.e., Amigen, Sorgen and Sigum are not registered trade marks. The assessee denied that it was manufacturing the goods with trade name of any other person/company. 6. The notification in question provides that the exemption contained therein shall not apply to the specified goods bearing a brand name or trade mark registered or not of any other person. 7. Having heard the counsel appearing for the parties at length and having scrutinised the Notification and the materials placed on record, we are of the opinion that since Diakanol, Diakamin and Noigen are the registered trade marks of M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., the assessee-company would not be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. in respect of the above three registered trade marks. The order of the Tribunal with respect to these products, which are registered trade marks, is affirmed. 8. However, Amigen, Sorgen and Sigum are not the registered trade marks and there is no finding recorded by any of the authorities below or by the Tribunal on the assertion made by the assessee-company in its reply to the show cause notice that these are the product names only and any manufacturer producing the said goods will call them by the same names throughout the country. The primary contention of the assessee-company in the reply to the show cause notice and even before us is that there is a difference between the brand/product name and the trade name. The primary contention of the assessee-company in the reply to the show cause notice and even before us is that there is a difference between the brand/product name and the trade name. The determination of this question is crucial for deciding the eligibility of the assessee-company to get the benefit of the Notification in question for the aforesaid three unregistered trade marks. In the absence of such decision on the point agitated by the assessee-company, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal and remit the case back to the Tribunal insofar as the unregistered products, namely, Amigen, Sorgen and Sigum are concerned, for a fresh decision in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 9. All contentions are left open in respect of the aforesaid three unregistered products. 10. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.