2000 (12) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... eal, manufactures paint and varnishes. It had claimed, and been accorded, the benefit of notification 1/93 for the goods manufactured by it. Notice dated 1-4-1994 was later issued to it alleging that it affixed on the containers of these goods the brand name "JK" which belonged, not to it, but to M/s. J.K. Brothers at Morvi, who were not entitled to the benefit of the notification. The notice proc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to the goods manufactured by the respondent packed in container bearing this brand name. 3. The assessee appealed this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) said that the benefit of the notification could not be denied to the goods because the condition in the notification referred to affixing a brand name or trade name used by another manufacturer. The affidavit of the partner of J.K. Brothers sho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d by the partner of M/s. J.K. Brothers is insufficient to conclude that the ownership of the brand name ceased to vest with M/s. J.K. Brothers. Before confronting this question, another has to be answered. The manufacturer had challenged the presumption in the show cause notice that the brand name belonged to M/s. J.K. Brothers. The brand name was not registered with the appropriate authorities. T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X