9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e registration of the brand name RADOJI and not RADO - the respondents have been clearing the goods under the brand name RADOJI and not RADO as alleged in the SCN - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-Revenue. - E/52/2007 - 40681/2017 - Dated:- 8-5-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri S. Nagalingam, AC (AR) for the Appellant Shri Raghavendra B. Hanjer, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S, The above appeal is filed against the order passed by the adjudicating Commissioner who dropped the demand raised in the show cause notice alleging wrongful availment of SSI exemption for the reason that they used the brand name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the brand name of another person and therefore are not eligible for SSI exemption. He submitted that the Commissioner has erred in accepting the contention of the respondent that they are using the brand name RADOJI and not RADO . That respondents have merely added the letter JI to the word RADO and the brand name, created thus by adding two letters is deceptively similar to the brand name / logo RADO . The respondents have fashioned the alphabets JI stretching it to the lower part of the word RADO appearing the same to be underline to the word RADO and thereby on the mere appearance, the brand name would read as RADO and not as RADOJI . That therefore the contention of the respondent that they are using different brand na ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar, Trademarks, Government of India, Mumbai. The learned counsel argued that the contention of the department that the brand name RADOJI is deceptively similar to the brand name RADO which is registered in the name of another person is a new plea in the appeal and that such allegation has not been put forward in the show cause notice. Further, the Proprietrix of the respondent firm Smt. R. Gowri has not deposed that they were using the brand name RADO . She has categorically deposed that the respondents were using the brand name RADOJI only. The respondents have been continuously using the brand name RADOJI from 13.8.1992. Their invoices also evidence the use of the brand name RADOJI and not that of RADO . The Commissioner has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame RADO . Since no allegation has been raised in the show cause notice that the respondents have been using deceptively similar brand name, the said plea of the department cannot be accepted at the stage of appeal. Further, the deposition of the Proprietrix Smt. R. Gowri relied upon by the department does not show that she had deposed that the respondents were using the brand name RADO . Instead she has stated the respondents were clearing the goods under the brand name RADOJI . From the documents of the Trademark Registry also, it is seen that the respondents had applied for the registration of the brand name RADOJI and not RADO . All these would collectively show that the respondents have been clearing the goods under the brand nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
