9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, one M/s. Riat Machine Tools (M/s. RMT for short) was incorporated in the year 1970 having two partners namely, Shri Davinder Pal Singh and Shri Navrattan Singh. They got registered the brand name as RIAT for the product manufactured by them with the trade mark registering authority, under the Trade Merchandise Act. With effect from 01.04.1995, the said business of partnership firm was taken over by M/s. Riat Machine Tools Pvt. Limited i.e. the present appellant who was having two Directors namely, Shri Navrattan Singh and Shri Davinder Pal Singh earlier the partners of M/s. RMT. The registration certificate also amended to that effect showing the appellants have started using the brand name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of M/s. Basant Presses (India) vide Final Order No. A/61066/2017. He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Elex Knitting Machinery Company vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2003 (158) ELT 499 (Tri. Del.), Elex Industries vs. CCE, Chandigarh 2003 (158) ELT 602 (Tri. Del.) which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court as well as by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported as 2012 (283) ELT A-18 (SC). He also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of CCE & ST, Indore vs. Sanjay Agarwal 2017 (345) ELT 568 (Tri. Del.) and Famcom Rubber Products (I) Pvt. Ltd vs. CCE & Cus. Delhi 2016 (343) ELT 689 (Tri. Del.). 4. In alternate, it is his submission that the fact of using brand name of M/s. RMT by the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RIAT and Shri Navrattan Singh and Shri Davinder Pal Singh were the partners of M/s. RMT. These two partners of M/s. RMT are the Directors of appellant firm. Therefore, in the light of decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Basant Presses (India) (supra) wherein the Tribunal observed as under:- "6. The sole ground for filing this appeal by the Revenue is that the appellant is using brand name of other person and the case laws relied upon by the ld. AR also says so. The facts of this case are altogether different from the case law relied upon by ld. AR. In fact, in this the facts before us are that the respondent is a proprietary ship concern, who is using the brand name of a partnership concern, where the proprietor of the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
