9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (7) TMI 384X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anya Foods, Madras under a deed of assignment. The period of dispute is from 01/03/1997 to 30/06/1998. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, under the deed of assignment executed by M/s. Chaitanya Foods, Madras in favour of the appellant, the appellant was entitled to use the above brand name within the limits of the revenue districts of Visakhapatnam and Vizainagaram to the exclusion of all others. It is submitted that no other manufacturer of cakes and pastries within the said territory had any right to use the above brand name. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the benefit of the relevant SSI exemption notifications cannot be denied to the appellant on the ground that the goods were supplied under the brand name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. (supra). 2. After considering the submissions, we have found valid reasons to hold that SSI benefit cannot be denied to the appellant in respect of the subject goods on the ground that these goods were supplied to customers under a brand name belonging to another person. It is not in dispute that the brand name HOT BREADS was assigned to the appellant by M/s. Chaitanya Foods, Madras and that the appellant thereby acquired exclusive right to use it on cakes and pastries within the territorial limits set out in the deed of assignment. It is not in dispute that, within such territory, nobody else, nor even the brand name owner, had the right to use the brand name on identical or similar goods. The notifications referred to brand nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Investment Pvt. Ltd., one of the cases considered by the apex court in the reported case of Vikshara Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It has been pointed out that the Tribunal s decision in Dhanvi Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. [2005(187) ELT] was rendered in pursuance of the above remand order. We have perused this order of the Tribunal as well. The Notification considered therein was No.175/86-CE, para 7 of which created a bar in respect of specified goods cleared by an SSI unit after affixing the brand name of another person. We find that the Tribunal s decision cited by the learned Superintendent(AR) is distinguishable. 3. In the result, we think that we will be justified in following the case law cited by the learned counsel w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
