9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i S.J. Vyas, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - This appeal has been directed by the Revenue against the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the benefit of the SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-86 to the respondents in spite of their using brand name of another person on their products Detergent powde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f that notification. He has also contended that the manufacture of different goods by the owner of the brand name, than the goods manufactured by the respondents, is of no consequence and the respondents still cannot claim benefit of the above said notification. He has referred to the latest pronouncement of the Apex Court on this point, in the case of CCE, Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders [2004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company (M/s. CMC Ltd.) assigned the brand name to M/s. Vikshara Trading Co. Ltd. who was engaged in the manufacture of detergent powder and cake. The respondents are said to have further obtained permission from M/s. Vikshara Trading & Investment Co. for using this brand name on their goods (Detergent powder and cake) through agreement dated 5-10-87. The ownership of the brand name still vests i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Therefore, the respondents cannot claim the benefit of that notification in terms of Para 7 of the notification. 5. The manufacture of different type of goods by the owner of the brand name, than what are being manufactured by the respondents, is of no consequence in view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CC, Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkwell (supra) wherein it has been observ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
