9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 01.03.2003 as the appellant has using the brand name prior to the registered owner of the brand name and the brand name is a common brand. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the partnership firm since, 1976 and the said partnership was dissolved on 07.04.1999. The appellant was using the said brand name since then and the brand name in question is registered in the name of M/s Sagar Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f 05.02.1996 the date when M/s SMT started using the said brand name. It is contention of the Ld. Counsel that the appellant is using this brand name prior to the use by M/s SMT i.e. prior to 05.02.1996 (third party) therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. To support this contention, he relied on the decision of Novel Tronics Corporation reported in 2009(237) ELT 331 (Tri. Chennai). He also submits that initially the appellant wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rector of the M/s SMT. As per the invoice shown by the appellant; they were using this brand name prior to 05.02.1996. We also take note of the fact that initially the brand in question was registered in the name of the father of the appellant and is registered in the name of other independent parties, therefore, the brand in question is a common brand, hence nobody can claim the sole owner of the brand. In that circumstances, the case law relied by the Ld. Counsel in the case of Kali Aerated Water Works (Supra) is applicable to the facts of this case. 8. We also find that, the appellant is entitled to avail benefit of the said Notification No. 8/03-CE dated 01.03.2003 as the appellant is using the said brand name prior to the brand name r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case, the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Novel Tronics Corporation (Supra) is applicable. Therefore, relying on this decision of this Tribunal in the case of Novel Tronic Corporation (Supra), we hold that the appellant is the owner of brand name 'SAGAR' as the appellant was using the said brand name prior to M/s SMT. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to avail benefit of exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 as the appellant has using the brand name prior to the registered owner of the brand name and the brand name is a common brand. Accordingly, impugned order deserves no merits, the same is set aside. In result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief (if any). (Dictated and Pron ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
