9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 943X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is used by someone else is also not borne out and the absence of such evidence was noted in Minimax Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II [2010 (1) TMI 1040 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that Mere user of the name or logo used by others which has not acquired the status of brand name or trade name within the meaning of the said expression under the said notifications, in our considered opinion cannot amount to violation of condition No. 4 of the said notification. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/107/2007, E/124 & 604/2010 - A/85369-85371/17/EB - Dated:- 17-1-2017 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri J. Arthur Prem, Advocate for the appellant No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... X instead of STD monitoring machines which do not carry that brand and the brand used by appellants is a commonly used adjective that has no connection with any other user. 4. Heard Learned Authorized Representative who took us through paragraph 4 and 5(A) of notification which, read together, denies the benefit of notification no. 8/2003-CE dated 1 st March 2003 to manufacturers of products that bear brand names of others. It is the case of Revenue that the appellants operate out of the premises of M/s Multivision Electronics Pvt Ltd and that some of the inputs are also procured through them owing to which the manufacture of MULTIPLE branded coin telephone boxes is not mere coincidence but the consequence of an arrangement by whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exemption was sufficient to deny the exemption that was otherwise entitled to another product. 6. None of these apply to the appellants who claim that they use an expression that is very common and that there is no connection with any other user of the same brand. In short, appellant claims independent entitlement for use of MULTIPLEX. 7. The exemption notification supra denies the benefit only if the brand does not belong to the user and the statements of key functionaries do not admit that the brand has been borrowed from any other. The cases cited on behalf of Revenue do not sustain the allegations. 8. On the other hand, the issue of brands that are not identified with any other user being entitled to exemption has been se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o any particular manufacturer and are free for any assessee to use as such, we are of the view that the benefit of notification cannot be denied to the appellant on this ground. 9. It is also evident that the contention of Revenue that brand does not belong to appellants merely because it is used by someone else is also not borne out and the absence of such evidence was noted in Minimax Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-II [2010 (261) ELT 535 (Tri-Del)] to hold that 10. Perusal of the orders passed by the authorities below undoubtedly discloses analysis of the materials on record and findings arrived at on the basis of such analysis. However, none of those findings reveal that the department was able to estab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to Condition No. 4 relating to the use of brand name or trade name of others. Mere user of the name or logo used by others which has not acquired the status of brand name or trade name within the meaning of the said expression under the said notifications, in our considered opinion cannot amount to violation of condition No. 4 of the said notification. 11. In the circular issued by the Board bearing No. 52/52/94-CX., dated 1-9-94 after taking note of the opinion of the Law Ministry in relation to the subject on which the said circular was issued, it was clearly observed thus - It is clear that if a brand name is not owned by any particular person, the use thereof will not deprive a unit of the benefit of the small scale exempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
