9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r brand name NETA and were availing exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93; that the Assistant Commissioner has denied them the exemption under Notification No. 1/93 holding that NETA is the registered trade mark of M/s. NETA Metal Works which is registered under the Trade Mark Registration Act; that the letter R within circle is an international abbreviation which denotes Registered Trade Mark; that putting R above registered trade mark NETA does not lead to separate identity or different trade mark; that on appeal Commissioner (Appeals), under the impugned order, rejected their appeal holding that the findings of the lower authority stood on a solid footing. The ld. Advocate, further, submitted, that Ms Paramjeet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for rehearing. The ld. Advocate also mentioned that the Assistant Commissioner had relied upon letter dated 11-1-95 of the Commissioner of Trade Mark Registry which was not relied upon in the show cause notice. He also said that they had applied to the competent authority for registration of trade mark NETA in their own name. He also relied upon the decision in the case of AGI Switches Pvt. Ltd v. CCE, New Delhi, 1999 (32) RLT 569 wherein the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 was extended as the Colour scheme and geometrical figures in which the words AGI were used were different. The ld. Advocate, therefore, contended that accordingly they should also be allowed the benefit of the Notification as the brand name used by them is different f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts of the persons were filed by the Appellants themselves and sufficient opportunity was given to them for re-examining those witnesses and if the witnesses were not in a position to appear for re-examination, nothing prevented the Appellants from filing their further affidavits; that the letter from the Examiner of Trade Mark Registry informed that M/s. A.S. Metal have applied for registration of trade mark NETA which has not been registered and the use of letter R was an offence under Trade Marks and Merchandised Act; and that this was in response to the stand taken by the Appellants, in their reply to the show cause notice, that they had applied for registration of the trade mark NETA in their name. Finally he relied upon the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
