1999 (11) TMI 154

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssification lists filed by the appellants with effect from 1-3-1992 to 6-4-1993, denying the benefit of exemption claimed by the appellants under Notification Nos. 175/86 and 1/93. 2. The appellant has been engaged in the manufacture of solenoid valves and spares falling under Heading No. 84.81 and for this purpose they have their factory at Manpada Road, Dombivali (East) Thane. The appellants were registered as SSI and they have held necessary SSI registration certificate. The final products manufactured by the assessee were cleared by them after affixing the brand name SEITZ-ROTEX with monogram SEITZ, SEMPRESS AND ROTEX. The appellant had registered the monogram S with an arrow inside it and also the monograph with the words ROTEX .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the word SEMPRESS and ROTEX with the words TT will have any connection with the foreign manufacturer. He states that the logic administered by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not correct in law. 5. Shri Deepak Kumar, Id. DR enthusiastically argues that explanation annexed to the notification enlarged the scope of brand name or trade name as contained in Explanation VIII para 7 of the Notification No. 175/86. He specifically argues that the words SEMPRESS ROTEX indicates the relationship with the products and the trade mark of the foreign company. 6. W e have considered the rival submissions. During the course of the arguments, Shri Christian cites a number of judgments. They are - 1. Palsons Drugs and Chemical Industries v. C.C. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person". It is clear from the above definition that for the purpose of Notifications 175/86 and 1/93, it is not essential that the ownership of a brand name must be established through registration. It is sufficient if by the usage of such brand name, the linkage between the goods and the company is established. In the instant case, the use of Sempress and Seitz definitely establishes such a link between the goods of the appellants with the erstwhile foreign collaborators. Thus the appellants are selling the goods with brand name of another person .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X