9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 200X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Srinivasa Raghavan, learned Counsel for the appellants has pleaded that the appellants manufactured the goods on their own account as well as on the account of job workers by using the brand name of M/s. Micro Labs Ltd. The brand name under which the appellants were manufacturing the product both on their account and on job work basis was the same. Only the form in which the product was emerged was different. The appellants own product was in liquid form while that of the job worker was in capsule form. He has pleaded that the appellants had lease agreement with the owners of the brand name and since the appellants were using the brand name on lease basis, the appellants can be taken to be the owner of the brand name by virtue of the lease ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e observe that on perusal of the lease agreement between the appellants and M/s. Micro Lab Ltd. we find that while the appellants have been allowed the use of the brand name of M/s. Micro Lab only, the ownership of the brand name in terms of the lease agreement was still held by M/s. Micro Lab. We also take note of the fact that the appellants were not paying any royalty to M/s. Micro Lab for the use of their brand name. We have asked the learned Counsel as to what was the need for entering into a lease agreement for the use of the brand name when the owner of the brand name was not to get any royalty. He has pleaded that the same could have been agreed to orally. He is not able to show any evidence in this regard. We also take note of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue the demand within a period of 6 months in respect of the clearances made after 26-9-1991. The appellants also, it is seen have manufactured same range of product as they were manufacturing on job work basis for M/s. Micro Lab and the brand name used was in respect of the same range of products which were in different form. In the circumstances in view of the use of the brand name of another person by the appellants and who was not eligible to the benefit of Notification 175/86, the appellants will not be eligible for the benefit of the said Notification for the period prior to 26-9-1991. 5. Penalty of Rs. 20,000/- levied on the appellants cannot be considered as excessive in the facts and circumstances and we uphold the same. But for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
