9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per : Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)]. Dispute in the present appeal relates to availability of notification no. 175/86-C.E. to the appellant, which has been denied on the ground that they were using the brand name of M/s. American Refrigeration Co. Ltd., who is not entitled to the benefit of notification. Accordingly, duty of Rs. 1,89,803/- has been confirmed against the appellant. 2. On the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the effect that For a period of 5 years from the date of completion of the sale, the vendors shall not carry on in their joint or separate names, or in the name of any other person or Company or otherwise, without the written permission of the purchase previously obtained, within 250 miles from the place of business of the purchaser to hold that the trade mark is still owned by the seller, who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy else s brand name. 5. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCEx., Ahmedabad v. Vikshara Trading and Invest. Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2003 (157) E.L.T. 4 (S.C.) has held that when there was an assignment of Trade mark in favour of other person, the benefit of small scale notification cannot be denied and the trade mark need not necessarily be in respect of all the goods and it is permissible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is clear that entire assets of the running units along with trademark were purchased by the appellant. In such case it cannot be said that the same belongs to the seller. Use of the same will not disentitle the appellant from the benefit of small scale exemption of the notification. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
