9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot entitled to avail the benefit under the said notification. 2. Shri S.P. Sheth, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants has drawn our attention to the two logos being used by them as also by the alleged owner of brand name and submits that whereas they are using the logo PARKMAN-T showing the picture of two Rice Mills Rubber Roll Pipes, the logo being used by the other unit is PAL-PARKMAN and there is no picture of the rolls on the said logo. He also submits that their logo is in an oval shape whereas the other unit s logo is in round shape. A visual examination of the two logos clearly establishes that they are not identical and as such it cannot be said that the appellants was using the brand name of the other unit. He also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... granted the same by the proper authorities. He draws our attention to the said certificate of registration. 3. Countering the arguments of learned Advocate, learned Jt. C.D.R. appearing for the Revenue submits that M/s. Parkman Polymers Industries came into existence in 1978 and had been using the brand name of Parkman right from that period onwards whereas the appellants have been using the said brand name from 1993 onwards. One of the partner of the appellant-firm Shri S.G. Samant was a partner of M/s. Parkman Polymer Industries till 1993 and has admitted in his statement that the said brand name was being used by the earlier firm M/s. Parkman Polymer Industries. As such, he submits that the Revenue has discharged its onus to show that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that if user of brand name is not legal owner of the same, they cannot be said to have right to exclusively use it. Use of brand name has to be distinguished from exclusive ownership of that name and if a brand name remain in the public domain and every one was free to use it, the benefit cannot be denied to the assessee. The above view was arrived at by taking note of the Board s Circular No. 52/52/94 whereas it was explained that there was practice of brand name not belonging to anyone but being used by more than one manufacturers in which situation there was no contravention of the condition contained in Para 4 of the Notification. We find that the above Board s Circular and the ratio of the Tribunal decision is fully applicable to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
