9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1297X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be known by the said brand name. Thus mere statement of customers cannot be a reasonable basis to reach of a conclusion that the brand name is owned by M/s. Braco Electricals or M/s. Braco Sales Corporation. The Revenue has failed to substantiate the allegation that the brand name Braco belongs to M/s. Braco Electricals and has also not countered the Affidavit and the evidence produced by the respondent in this regard - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Appeal No. E/830/2008 E/CO/142/08 - Order No. A/86422/2018 - Dated:- 17-5-2018 - Hon ble Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Supdt. AR for Appellant Shri R.B. Pardeshi, Advocate with Shri N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scale exemption is available. He pointed out that in the current circumstances these facts are totally irrelevant and the only relevant facts is if the appellants are using brand name which does not belong to them. He further pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) also relies on the fact that the appellant has been a freedom fighter and therefore a lenient view should be taken. 3. Ld. AR relied on the decision of Hon ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Grasim Industries Ltd. [2005 (165) E.L.T. 123 (S.C.)] to assert that to qualify as one s brand name what is essential is the connection in the market between the brand name and the product. 4. Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that prior to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Machinery Co. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex., Chandigarh-I 2003 (158) E.L.T. 499 (Tri,-Del.) and on the decision of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Vs. Minimax Industries 2011 (269) ELT 166 (Del.) to assert that the brand name belonging to family is a common brand name and thus anyone in the family can use the same. 6. Ld. AR stated that Affidavit produced by the appellant cannot be taken as evidence. Ld. Counsel pointed out that these Affidavits were produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) and he has considered these Affidavits. He pointed out that the grounds of appeal of Revenue do not object to these affidavits. 7. We have gone through the rival submissions. We find that these Affidavits were pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
