9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (4) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also been confirmed besides imposing penalty of Rs. 30,000/-. 2. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants, the ld. Counsel submits that they have independent registration certificate and have no connection in trade with the foreign brand name or foreign logo or with the foreign company. Although he admits the name of the Company Nubal Electronics (India) Limited initially had an agreement with Nubal Electronics Ltd., England but the logo used by Nubal Electronics Ltd. England has words Intersystem below the logo which is not in the case of appellant Indian Company. He admits there is no independent trade name registration in their name, however he, strongly contends that they are deceptively dissimilar. In view of the Bench s decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Department and hence the demand raised by show cause notice dt. 2-8-94 for the period from June 92 to March 93 is time barred as there is no suppression. He also submits that this point has not been fully gone into by the Commissioner, hence, the order requires to be reconsidered in the light of the judgment cited by him. 4. The ld. DR points out that there is no dispute regarding the appellants using the logo of foreign company. They have a common logo except in the English firm s name below the logos Intersystem has been written in block letters. He also submit that though the Bench has remanded for de novo consideration the case of CCE v. Gomukhi Charma Kendra (supra) and Continental Power System (supra) to re-decide the issue in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order. Therefore, the Tribunal in the similar matter remanded the case for reconsideration as in the case of CCE v. Gomukhi Charma Kendra (supra). The Tribunal relied on its earlier order rendered in the case of Continental Power System v. CCE (supra). There is clear direction given by the ld. Commissioner for re-examination and verifying of the terms of para IX and X of the Notification as well as the judgment rendered by the Madras High Court in the case of CCE v. Pillaiyar Soda Factory (supra) and that of Rukmani Pakkwell Traders. The ld. Commissioner had no occasion to look into these aspect of the matter, in the present case also the ratio noted in the judgment in the case of CCE v. Gomukhi Charma Kendra (supra) are total app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
