9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 1133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llants manufacture Narrow Woven Fabrics (Tapes) which are entirely supplied to the garment manufacturers who use them as an input in the manufacture of the garments; that no part of the tapes so manufactured is sold by the Appellants to anybody else except the respective garment manufacturers; that while manufacturing tapes they weave the brand name or trade name of their customers in the tapes; that no doubt, the Appellate Tribunal in their own case vide Final Order No. 1056/99-D, dated 24-12-1999 has denied the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 holding that they had cleared the goods bearing the brand name of another person by relying upon the decision in the case of C.C.E. v. Wood s Glamour, 1991 (54) E.L.T. 153 (Tribunal); that, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w cited by the Tribunal in Wood s Glamour case is not correct. Reliance was also placed on the decision in the case of C.C.E., Rajkot v. Vitashiv Ceramics Ltd. Finally he referred to Circular No. 71/71/94-CX, dated 27-10-1994 issued by the Central Board of Excise Customs wherein it was clarified that the castings manufactured as per the specific requirement of the customers and bearing brand name of the customer are not sold in the market as castings as such because it will be of no use to another person and when such castings are not traded but only sold to a particular manufacturer for his own use, the embossing of the brand name of the customers on the casting would not amount to using brand name so as to denying the benefit of Notific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have to be satisfied (i) such brand name must indicate the connection between the branded goods and some person using such brand name, and (ii) such connection should be in the course of trade. The Board clarified that consequently if there is no trade of such goods the brand name provisions would not apply. Similar views were held by the Tribunal in the case of S.A. Industries wherein it was held as under :- It is thus evident that a connection in the course of trade between the goods and the trade mark must be there for attracting the mischief contained in para 7; that the sale of goods to the owner of the brand name itself for his own use cannot be equated with the dealings in the course of trade. The Larger Bench of the Tribunal has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
