2013 (11) TMI 1138 - AT - Central Excise

Ownership of Trademark Waiver of Pre-deposit - Held that - There is no supporting evidence to substantiate the plea from Deed of Dissolution of partnership dated 7th April 1990 - There was multiple confusion made by appellant to the Adjudicating Authority in the name of Sagar Engineering, Sagar Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. and Sagar Tools - the appellant kept Revenue in dark to reach to a conclusion as to the use of the brand name by the appellant from 1976 - Relying upon Banara Valves Ltd. vs. CCE 2006 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Prima facie, the pre-deposit of Rupees Thirty Lacs shall not cause prejudice to the interest of Revenue Partial stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Ownership of brand name, confusion in use of brand names, pre-deposit amount determination

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, delivered by Shri D.N. Panda, addressed multiple issues. Firstly, the tribunal examined the ownership of the brand name used by the appellant, emphasizing the lack of supporting evidence from the Deed of Dissolution of partnership dated 7th April 1990. The document did not establish the appellant's ownership of the trademark in 1976 or 1979, leading to confusion regarding the brand names "Sagar Engineering," "Sagar Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd.," and "Sagar Tools." The tribunal noted that this confusion misled the Adjudicating Authority and decided that a detailed investigation into these matters would occur during the final appeal hearing.

Regarding the pre-deposit amount determination, the tribunal directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 30,00,000/- within four weeks to prevent prejudice to the Revenue's interests. This decision aligned with the precedent set by the Apex Court in the case of Banara Valves Ltd. vs. CCE (2006) and Assistant Collector vs. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985). The tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with the pre-deposit directive by the specified date of 26th June, 2013, to ensure procedural fairness and adherence to legal standards.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of establishing ownership of the brand name, resolving confusion surrounding its use, and determining the appropriate pre-deposit amount in line with legal precedents. The tribunal's decision aimed to uphold fairness, transparency, and compliance with established legal principles in the adjudication process.