9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ines, Planning Machines, Round Bar Straightening Machines and Duplex Grinding Machines etc falling under chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff and are availing SSI Exemption on the said goods. They were not registered with the Central Excise Department. 2.2 On the basis of intelligence, investigations revealed that the respondents were using brand name RIAT on the said machines manufactured by them. 2.3 In his statement, Shri Manjeet Singh, Partner of the respondents admitted that they were aware that RIAT is the Trade Mark of M/s RMT and that they (M/s RMT) appear to be the inventor of the said brand name RIAT. A statement of Shri Davinder Singh, Partner of M/s RMT was also recorded wherein he stated that they were the original owners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s rested with M/s RMT and the respondents were allowed the limited use. He also contends that even after getting the brand name registered in their name, the original ownership rested with M/s RMT. It was also argued that the use of the same brand name by M/s RMT and the respondents for different goods cannot be justified as the products fall under same class 7 under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. He also relied on the following judgments: (i) CCE, Chandigarh Vs. Bhalla Enterprises - 2004 (173) ELT 225 (SC) (ii) CCE, Trichy Vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders - 2004 (165) ELT 481 (SC) (iii) Prince Valves Industry vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2006 (196) ELT 141 (SC) (iv) Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd vs. CCE - 2007 (210) ELT 161 (SC) ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icee has acquired right to use brand name RIAT in respect of machines under reference and it is further laid down that the continuing partners shall not manufacture or deal in any of machines under reference under the trade mark RIAT . Rather, the use of words subject to before clause 10, implies that the clause 10 will come into operation after meeting out the conditions of clause 8, 9(a) (b). Clause 10 is to be read in conjunction with clause 8, 9(a) (b). If it is to be read in isolation, as appears to have been done by the investigation agency, then the purpose and aim of executing deed of dissolution and incorporation of clause 8, 9(a) (b) into said deed would be in-fructuous." 6.3 While deed of dissolution gave the right to use the RI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also find that in the case of CCE Ahmedabad vs. Vikshara Trading & Investment P. Ltd. 2003 (157) ELT 4 (S.C) wherein the Revenue appeal was rejected and the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the Tribunal s finding wherein it was held that the trade name need not necessarily be in respect of all goods unless registration has been so required and it has been further held that it s permissible in law to have same brand name for having different class of goods owned by different persons and held that the Notification No. 223/87-CE was applicable. 6.6 We also agree with the following findings of the Commissioner on joint ownership by two partnership firms: "3.13 In case of CCE Vs. Sivanesan & Co. 2005 (190) ELT 236 (CESTAT), brand name was jointly ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
