9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 892 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - N/N. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - use of brand name of others - The case of the Revenue is that, one Shri Pran Nath Khanna was the owner of brand name for the intended goods. As the same was registered in his name with effect from 15.07.2004 vide registration certificated dated 13.02.2006, therefore, it was proposed in the show cause notice that as the brand name Everest is owned by the 3rd party. Held that - As per the settlement agreement, all the parties to that agreement having the right to use the brand name individually or working together for manufacturing the same product of earlier EEW. Further, Smt. Asha Khanna, partner of respondent was the party to the settlement who was entitled to use the brand name EVEREST for manufacturing the product manufactured by earlier EEW. In that circumstance, the respondents are using their own brand name. Admittedly, the partners of EEW are having the right to use brand name EVEREST individually or working together. Therefore, benefit of N/N. 8/2003 dated 01.03.2003 cannot be denied to the respondents. As in the case in hand, as per settlement agreement dated 21.05.1989, the respondent were having the equal right to use the brand name EVEREST, in that circumstance, it cannot be said that respondents are using the brand name of another person. Therefore, the respondent are entitled to avail the benefit of exemption N/N. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. 2. Ownership and usage rights of the brand name 'Everest'. 3. Interpretation and application of relevant case law. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE: The core issue is whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. The Revenue's contention is based on the assertion that the respondent used the brand name 'Everest', which belongs to another person, specifically Shri Pran Nath Khanna, as per the registration certificate effective from 15.07.2004. According to clause (iv) of the Notification, the benefit is not available if the goods are manufactured under the brand name of another person. The Commissioner (Appeals) had allowed the benefit, which was challenged by the Revenue. 2. Ownership and Usage Rights of the Brand Name 'Everest': The respondent argued that the brand name 'Everest' was used by a partnership firm, Everest Engineering Works (EEW), since 1968. A settlement agreement dated 21.05.1989 among the partners allowed each partner to use the brand name individually or together. The respondent, being a partner, claimed the right to use the brand name 'Everest'. The Tribunal noted that the settlement agreement explicitly stated that all parties had the right to use the brand 'Everest' and no individual party would register it alone. Despite the later registration by Shri Pran Nath Khanna, the Tribunal held that the respondent was using the brand name in their capacity as a partner of EEW, thus owning the brand name as per the settlement agreement. 3. Interpretation and Application of Relevant Case Law: The Tribunal considered several precedents: - Bentex Motor Control Industries vs. CCE: This case supported the respondent's position, indicating that partners could use the brand name as it belonged to all of them. - Prince Valves Industry vs. CCE: Distinguished from the current case as it involved a different context where the ownership of the trademark was not transferred. - Meghraj Biscuits Industries Limited vs. CCE: The Apex Court ruled that retrospective registration does not confer exemption benefits if the trademark was wrongly used. - Stangen Immuno Diagnostics vs. CCE: The Apex Court stated that if a party uses a brand name in its own right, it does not fall under the mischief of using another's brand name. - Kali Aerated Water Works vs. CCE: The Apex Court found that if a brand name is jointly owned and used, it does not belong to another person. - Jain Spices vs. CCE: The Tribunal observed that joint ownership of a brand name allows each owner to use it in their own manufacturing and trading activities. Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, concluding that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 08/2003-CE. The Tribunal found that the respondent was using the brand name 'Everest' in their capacity as a partner of EEW, as per the settlement agreement, and not as a brand name belonging to another person. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.
|
