9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r per : P.C. Jain, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. 2. Question involved in this matter is whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 in respect of the following three brand names of Soaps manufactured by the appellants herein can be extended or not : (i) Addax Neem Soap; (ii) Swatej Neem Soap; (iii) New Soma Beauty Soap. 3. The authority below has denied the benefit of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d are traders and therefore, they are not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 and that these three customers as mentioned above, own each of the branch names. Consequently, the benefit of the Notification No. 175/86 has been denied to the appellants herein. This finding is, further, said to be supported by the statement of Shri G.C. Shaw, Proprietor of the appellant company, and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice or in the finding of the adjudicating authority that brand-name Swatej thereof, belongs to M/s. Eastern Chemicals. Likewise, he submits that in respect of New Soma Beauty Soap, no evidence whatsoever, is on record, either in the show cause notice or in the adjudication order that M/s. Lokenath Industries own the brand-name of New Soma Beauty Soap. Learned Consultant, therefore, submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the adjudicating authority that the aforesaid three branded soaps belong to others, is based without any evidence. A mere inference from the names of the distributor, organiser in manufacture in respect of soaps, does not, ipso facto, lead to the conclusion that the brand-names were owned by these persons. The statements on which the authority has relied, are also not clear that it is admitted b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
