9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (7) TMI 420X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Member (T)]. The present appeal is filed against the orders passed by the Commissioner and adjudicating authority, wherein he denied the benefit of Notification 1/93 on the ground that the appellant is using the brand name of M/s. Katari Ceramic Industries. 2. Shri Rama Mohana Rao, the learned Consultant for the appellant contended before us that M/s. Katari Refractories and M/s. Katari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies not only to locks but to all other goods specified in Notification No. 1/93-C.E. 3. Relying on the above said para, it was contended that if a brand name is not owned by any person, the use thereof will not deprive an user of the benefit of the small scale exemption scheme and this was issued in connection with locks and it was also mentioned that this principle will apply to all other good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at by mere concidence they are using the name Katari and it is not the brand name of M/s. Katari Ceramic Industries. It was the contention of the appellants that M/s. Katari Ceramic Industries cannot be said to be the owner of the above brand name. We have examined this aspect which was canvassed before us. We find that Smt. K. Subbalakshmi, Managing Partner of the appellant had given a statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that the appellant was using the brand name of M/s. Katari Ceramic Industries, as is evident from the above said statements and, therefore, the impugned order denying them the benefit of Notification 1/93, dated 28-2-1993 is legal and proper. Therefore, the contention of the appellants in this regard cannot be accepted. 6. In the above view of the matter, the demand of duty is sustainable and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
