9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - These appeals have been filed against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 20 21/2007 dated 15-6-2007, passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-II), Bangalore. 2. Shri H. S. Ananth Padmanabha, learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri Raja Dass, learned JDR appeared for the Revenue. 3. Heard both the side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be owned by a person. In any case, there is no evidence to show that the registration has been given to the second appellant. Reliance was placed on this Bench decision in the case of Katrala Products (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Coimbatore [2005 (186) E.L.T. 65 (Tri.-Bang.)] wherein it was held that when the ownership of a brand name cannot be decided, it cannot be said that one unit used the same by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. In the case of Voltarc India (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Guntur [2004 (172) E.L.T. 221], it was held that the Revenue has to establish the ownership of brand name by another person. In the case of Whale Stationery Products Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut [2004 (168) E.L.T. 405], it has been held that registration of trade mark takes effect from the date of application, if the trade mark is registered. Till the trade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On a very careful consideration of the matter, we find that there is no evidence brought on record by the Revenue to show that the brand name Garnier belongs to the second appellant. The fact that the second appellant had applied for registration cannot be a reason for denying SSI benefit to the first appellant on the ground that they had used brand name of the other. The Commissioner s (Appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
