9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was that this brand name belonged to another unit, which was the sole proprietorship concern of Mr. Mohd. Yamin. It was held in the case that it can be said that at the most, the name “Minimax” belongs to both the entities namely, the partnership firm as well as MEI - exemption was allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/771/2004-DB - - - Dated:- 30-1-2017 - Shri S.S Garg, Judicial Member And Shri V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Shri Raghavendra B Hanjer, Advocate for the appellant Shri Mohammed Yousuf, Addl. Commissioner(AR) for the respondent ORDER Per V. Padmanabhan The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cranes, hoists etc. and availed SSI exemption during the years 1998-99 and 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re not authorised to use the said brand name. Reliance in this regard is placed on CCE, Bangalore Vs. Featherlite Seating Systems Pvt. Ltd. [2009(248) ELT 505 (Tri. Bang.)] and CCE Vs. Minimax Industries [2011(269) ELT 166 (Del.)]. iii. Burden is on the department to prove that the brand name belongs to another person. In the present case, the department has not proved the same with corroborative evidence. Reliance in this regard is place on Eco Products India (P) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Meerut [2000(120) ELT 357 (Tri.)] iv. The use of name Transpade is also justified by the appellant s company as the appellant started using the said name only after obtaining registration under the Companies Act. v. He also submitted that the entire de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... did not belong to the appellant. The Revenue s contention is that the brand name belongs to Shri S.B. Ghorphade, Managing Director of appellant, but in his capacity as proprietor of another firm with the name of M/s. Transpade, Revenue has sought to disallow the benefit on the ground that the benefit of the notification will stand disallowed in respect of goods affixed with the brand name of another. The relevant part of the Notification No.8/2001 dt. 01/03/2001 is reproduced below:- 4. The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not another person, except in the following cases:- .... .... 5.2. Similar wordings also find plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ern of third brother. Both of them have been using the mark Minimax for the last number of years, though, the use by MEI may be prior in point of time. However, even that is the history. Initially, all the three brothers were doing the business together, however, later on these two brothers of partnership firm started separate business in the same line using same name i.e. Minimax . In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the partnership firm started using the name Minimax which belonged to MEI. In the aforesaid circumstances, it can be said that at the most, the name Minimax belongs to both the entities namely, the partnership firm as well as MEI. 15. Admittedly, MEI has not got the brand name/logo Minimax registered either und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the brand name has used the said brand name in respect of the goods manufactured in the unit in which he was Managing Director. The first appellate authority relied on the decision of the Tribunal in Anil Pumps (P) Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Panchkula 2005 (180) ELT 500 and Bothara Agro Equipments P. Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Aurangabad 2007 (214) ELT 121 (Tri-Mum.). It was also noted that the original authority did not follow these rulings only on the ground that the appeal against the said orders are pending. We find that ratio of the Tribunal s decisions as above has been correctly adopted in the impugned order. As such, we find no merit in the appeal filed by Revenue. The same is dismissed. 7. In view of the above discussions, by following the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
