9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2004 - - - Dated:- 5-7-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mrs. S. Murugappan For the Respondent : Mr. A.P. Srinivas ORDER Heard Mr.S.Murugappan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the show cause notice issued by the respondent, demanding payment of basic excise duty alleging that the excisable goods were removed without payment of duty. 3. The legal issue, which is involved in this case is, as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the exemption from payment of duty on goods bearing the brand name of another person cleared from their factory in terms of the rele ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ling his goods outside his marketing area. So far his business is concerned the appellant appears to be the only legal owner of the Trade Mark within his marketing area. This has been clearly brought out in the Mutual Agreement dated 12.03.1993 which has been duly presented on 12.03.1993 itself for registration whereas the impugned Notification No.59/94 came into effect only from 01.04.1994 and hence no motive can be attributed against the appellant in respect of the Mutual Agreement. I have read the entire contents of Mutual Agreement. I find that Mr.K.P.R.Sakthivel is also a party to the said Mutual Agreement and no royalty is also payable to the said K.P.R.Sakthivel. Even Mr.K.P.R.Sakthivel has specifically agreed that he cannot use the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the appellant is the legal owner of the brand names within his marketing area. 5. It is thus manifest that the appellant has been using his own brand name 'Kalimark' and it belongs to the appellant. In view thereof, the case of the appellant is squarely covered in its favour by the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No.9157 of 2003 titled CCE, Hyderabad-IV v. Stangen Immuno Diagnostics decided on 19.03.2015 [2015 (318) E.L.T. 585 (S.C.)]. 4. The above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed by the CESTAT in the assessee's own case, in a batch of appeals, in Appeal No.R/518/2008 etc. dated 15.10.2015, and all the appeals have been allowed. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
