9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 1054X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f brand name of others on goods different than the one manufactured by the brand name owner was held to be permissible by various decisions of Tribunal. Even if we accept the Revenue’s contention that the said brand name belonged to reputed manufacturer, they have not shown anything to establish that the said brand names were being used by their owners in respect of Transmission rubber belting. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for the respondent-assessee. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of Transmission rubber belting. During the course of visit of the officer, it was found that they were using various brand names like Goodyear, monkeygrip, libra, powerex, kirloskar, tata super, anchor, gainda, neyveli, vikrant, diamond, field marshal, good yark, camel, Hindustan, Diinlop, tata etc. on their product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt on 16-12-1996 and as such, Revenue was aware of the fact of use of brand name by the appellants in which case the show cause notice issued on 16-4-1999 by invoking longer period of limitation would be barred. He accordingly, set aside the demand on the point of limitation also. 4. Revenue in their memo of appeal have not advanced any evidence to show as to whom the said brand name belonged. A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said brand name belonged to reputed manufacturer, they have not shown anything to establish that the said brand names were being used by their owners in respect of Transmission rubber belting. As various decisions during the relevant period had laid down that use of brand name of others, in respect of different goods would not bar claim of small scale exemption, we are of the view that no sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
