9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It was revealed that the appellant affixed logo "AMTECH" to the goods manufactured by them. During the investigation it was found that another Company M/s. Amtech Electronics (India) Limited affixed the same logo "AMTECH" to the goods manufactured by them. The SCN was issued wherein it was alleged that the "AMTECH" logo is owned by M/s. Amtech Electronics (India) Limited, therefore, by using same brand by the appellant, they are not entitled for SSI exemption. Accordingly, the demand of duty was confirmed and the same was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, the present appeal. 2. Shri. Dhaval Shah, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that "AMTECH" is house mark of the appellant and the same is not brand name. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same design it was being used by other company M/s. Amtech Electronics (India) Limited, therefore, the appellant is using the brand name of other company. The ownership of "AMTECH" logo belongs to M/s. Amtech Electronics (India) Limited as the said company was registered since, 1987 and the appellant company was incorporated in 1997 therefore, the appellant are using the brand name of another person, hence not eligible for SSI exemption notification No. 9/2002-CE. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that though the appellant have strongly argued that the appellant are using the house mark, therefore, the SSI exemption cannot be denied merely by using their own house nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the same logo is used by both the companies, therefore, considering the nature of the monogram it cannot be said that it is only the house mark used by the appellant, it is clearly a brand name falling under definition given in the Notification. All the judgments relied upon by the appellant are on the issue that if the house name of the company is used it cannot be treated as brand name but as discussed above in the present case, the monogram in a particular design and in a particular writing being used by M/s. Amtech Electronics (India) Limited much before the incorporation of the appellant company, therefore, the same logo/ monogram used by the appellant is clearly the use of brand name of another company. As regard, the ownership of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
