9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (12) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tablish that the trade mark belongs to them. The registration certificate is dated 31-3-2010 - The brand name could not have belonged to someone else even for the earlier period -the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Bigen Industries Limited - [2006 (4) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]to support his contention that once the trade mark is registered in the name of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent was using the brand name of someone else and therefore, was not eligible for SSI exemption. 2. Learned advocate on behalf of the respondents submits that while setting aside the order of the original adjudicating authority the Commissioner has observed that department has not produced any evidence to show that the so called brand name "Citizen" was embossed on the animal cage. In fact S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd therefore, the same could not be produced at the time of adjudication or appeal. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Mumbai v. Bigen Industries Limited - 2006 (197) E.L.T. 305 (S.C.) to support his contention that once the trade mark is registered in the name of assessee by a statutory authority authorized to do so recognizing the assessee to be the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents have been able to establish that the trade mark belongs to them. The registration certificate is dated 31-3-2010. The brand name could not have belonged to someone else even for the earlier period. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the respondents also supports their case. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the Revenue has no merits and accordingly, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
