9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of penalty on the company. Besides that penalty of Rs. 30 lakhs was imposed on appellant Shri Surjit Singh, Director on the premise that the appellant-company has wrongly availed SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003, despite the fact that during the relevant period, the appellant was using their brand name 'Mankoo' which belonged to M/s. Mankoo International Industries. 2. The appellants have the appeals along with the stay applications under Section 35F seeking waiver of condition of pre-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty as precondition of hearing their appeals. 3. Shri AR Madhav Rao, learned Counsel for the appellant appearing for the appellants has contended that the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (173) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court has decided in favour of the assessee. 4. On the aforesaid basis, Shri Madhva Rao submits that the appellants have a strong prima facie case as such there is reason for dispensation with condition of pre-deposit. 5. Shri Sanjay Jain, learned DR for the respondent, on the contrary has opposed the stay applications for stay and he has reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. Learned DR submits that admittedly the trade mark 'Mankoo' is registered in the name of another party, therefore, the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. is not available to the appellant. As such there is no reason for dispensing with condition of pre-deposit. 6. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proprietor or a predecessor-in-title of his; or (b) to the date of registration of the first-mentioned trade mark in respect of those goods in the name of proprietor or a predecessor-in-title of his; whichever is the earlier, and the Registrar shall not refuse (on such use being proved) to register the second-mentioned trade mark by reason only of the registration of the first-mentioned trade mark." 8. Similarly, Section 34 of Trade Marks Act, 1999 which superseded the earlier Act deals with saving for vested rights which reads thus : "34. Saving for vested rights. - Nothing in this Act shall entitle the proprietor or a registered user of a registered trade mark to interfere with or restrain the use by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed above since the appellant has been using the brand name 'Mankoo' on his products much prior to registration of brand name in favour of Mankoo International Industries, prima facie it cannot be said that the appellant was using the brand name with the intention of indicating a connection with the assessees' goods and such other person or use the name in such a manner that it would indicate such connection. Thus prima facie he cannot be denied the benefit of exemption notification. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chandigarh v. Bhalla Enterprises while dealing with similar situation held thus : "6. The apprehension of the assessees that they may be denied the exemption merely because some other traders even in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
