9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aring the goods under the brand name 'SANT' which is the registered trade mark of Sant Brass Metal Works, Jalandhar. Therefore, the appellants were not entitled for the benefit of this notification. 3.Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that M/s. Sant Brass Metal Works was registered owner of the trade marks of the SANT and they were manufacturing different kinds of valves and cocks with ISI specification and of IBR grade under the brand name of 'SANT'. The Sant Brass Metal Works also manufacture such type of valves and cocks which were not of ISI specification and of IBR grade. On 31-3-1986, the Firm Sant Brass Metal Works was dissolved and dissolution deed was executed whereby Shri Ram Prakash Sikka was given l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts are entitled to use this brand name 'SANT' on non-ISI valve and cocks, therefore, it cannot be said that appellants were manufacturing the goods with the brand name of other persons. He, therefore prays that the appeal be allowed. 5.Learned JDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that it is an admitted position that brand name 'SANT' is a registered trade mark of M/s. Sant Brass Metal Works. He submits that the dissolution of the firm dissolution of Deed does not change the situation in respect of the registered trade mark. He relies upon the Hon'ble Madras High Court decision in the case of M/s. Kali Aerated Water Works v. Union of India, reported in 1995 (76) E.L.T. 265 (Mad.) and submits that in similar situation the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d only in the name of one partner, the other partners cannot use that brand name independently even with the permission of the partner under whose name it was registered. The Hon'ble High Court held as under : "The trade or brand name in question has been registered in the name of K.P.R. Sakthivel and that it is an indisputable fact that the other petitioners are using the trade or brand name registered in the name of the said K.P.R. Sakthivel, merely by virtue of the permission granted, of course as recorded in the deed of mutual arrangement. The said factual position by itself is sufficient to reject their claims for exemption in view of the specific provisions contained in Paragraph 4 of the Notification in question. The petitioners he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
