9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cate, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 36 & 37/98 dated 18-9-98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- The respondents are the manufactures of Kesavardhini hair oil. There are actually two units situated at different places ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority. The Revenue has come before this Tribunal against the impugned order in appeal on the following grounds :- (a) Here two different firms are owning the same brand name and as per Central Excise Notification No. 140/83 where the brand is owned by two different entities, none of them is entitled to the exemption. 3. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the benefit of the Notification. We see no reason to take a different view on this aspect." The Supreme Court having ruled as above, pointed out that in that case, the respondent was using Trade mark "MAHAAN" with additional words "Taste Maker" as his brand name and therefore, it is stated that when the respondent get the Trade Mark Registered they would be entitled for exemption. In the case b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has registered the Brand name Kesavardhini. In view of the case law cited by the Counsel for the Respondents we hold that each unit owns the brand name. Moreover, the condition in the Notification does not say if two different persons owned the same brand name both are not eligible for the exemption. The condition is to the effect that the exemption shall not apply to the specified goods bearing b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
