9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ogy of DRDO/DRDE. The goods were not sold under the brand name of DRDO or DRDE. The name MosGuard is the brand name of the appellant and not of DRDO/DRDE. On the facts of this case, it is not correct to say that the goods were being sold under the brand name of DRDO. MosGuard‟ is the brand name of the appellant and not that of DRDO/DRDE. However, the goods were manufactured with the help of technology transferred by DRDO under MOU and this fact is mentioned on the products along with the logo of DRDO. This cannot be considered as trade mark in any sense of the term - In this case, the indication of the logo with respect to trade is MosGuard which is owned by the appellant itself. The logo and name of DRDO on the product indicate r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t manufactured mosquito spray and cream and other products as per a Memorandum of Understanding [ MOU ] with Defence Research and Development Establishment who provided the technical knowhow. One of the conditions of the MOU was that the appellant shall mention on the products that they were manufactured with technical knowhow from DRDE/DRDO and the products shall carry marking DRDO/DRDE technology, commercialised by SC . The SC in this marking refers to the appellant Shrinathji Chemicals. It appeared to the Assistant Commissioner (Audit) that the appellant was not eligible for small scale exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003 because the availability of this exemption was subject to the condition specified in paragraph 4 whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est and imposed penalties as proposed. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned authorized representative for the Revenue and perused the records. 5. The short question which needs to be answered is whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. It is undisputed that the goods were being sold under the brand name MosGuard on the basis of the technology provided by DRDO/DRDE since the technology was provided by DRDO/DRDE. As required under the MOU, it was indicated on the product that they were manufactured with the technology of DRDO/DRDE. The goods were not sold under the brand name of DRDO or DRDE. The name MosGuard is the brand name of the appellant and not o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord brand name or trade name in the notification it does specify that the mark, symbol, monograph, lable, signature etc. should be used in relation to the specified goods for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate the connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person. In this case, the indication of the logo with respect to trade is MosGuard which is owned by the appellant itself. The logo and name of DRDO on the product indicate relationship between the DRDO and the technology of the product. They do not indicate a relationship between DRDO and trade of the product. The trade of the product is indicated by the word ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
