9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondents. [Order per : V.K. Asthana, Member (T)]. - To get this appeal heard, the appellants are required to pre-deposit duty of Rs. 47,74,961/- and penalty of Rs.10,00,000/- imposed vide Order-in-Original No. 9/99 dated 19-05-99. The issue involves the question whether the appellants have used the brand name or trade mark of another person within the meaning of condition No.2 (iii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rk is pari materia to a similar explanation available under Notification No. 175/86-CE. He submits that the issue of such a brand name vis-a-vis Notification No. 175/86-CE has already been considered by the Tribunal in the case of Chemguard Coatings P. Ltd. v. CCE as reported in 2000 (116) E.L.T. 840 (Tri.) = 1999 (34) RLT 560, wherein it was held that legends like "produced under licence from AME ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sideration of the submissions, we find that the issue is no longer res integra as it is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Chemguard Coatings P. Ltd. and Nippa Chemicals P. Ltd. (supra). In the case of Chemguard Coatings P. Ltd. (supra) the legend was almost identical, inasmuch as that the name of the company which has authorised the production and marketing of the product had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
