9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (4) TMI 133X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssifiable under sub-heading No. 1905.11 of the Central Excise Tariff. The biscuits were sold under the brand name "Meghraj" which belonged to M/s. Kay Aar Biscuits (Pvt.) Ltd. Under show cause notices dated 6-6-1994 and dated 25-8-1994, it was alleged that as the biscuits were sold under the brand name "Meghraj", which was a registered trade mark of Kay Aar Biscuits (Pvt.) Ltd., who were using this trade mark for manufacture of biscuits themselves, the appellants were not eligible to the benefit of small scale exemption notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 as amended by Notification No. 59/94-C.E., dated 1-3-1994. The Asstt. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad, who adjudicated the matter, examined the printed wrappers of the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption was not available to the excisable goods bearing brand name or trade name, (registered or not) of another person. Para-7 of that Notification provided as under :- "The exemption contained in this Notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person, who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under this Notification." We are not concerned with the second Proviso to this para-7 of the said Notification. It has been explained in Explanation VIII during the relevant time as under : - 'Brand name' or 'trade name' shall mean a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say a name or a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 1 has specifically allowed party No. 2 to use its Trade Mark for the manufacture of WAFERS alone with the condition that this will not be used on any other products besides Wafers without their consent in writing. That this agreement is valid for a period of three years effective from this day, whereafter, it may be renewed as per mutual consent in writing. Parties have put their signature in presence of the witness on this day and year mentioned above." 5.It As thus seem that M/s. Kay Aar Biscuits (Pvt.) Ltd. were the owner of the registered trade mark "Meghraj", which was registered under Trade Marks and Merchandise Act, in Bombay. This trade name did not belong to the appellants. M/s. Kay Aar Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. were admittedly a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 (Tribunal) para-9]. According to Black's Law Dictionary - 6th Edition Page 1080, 'of' has been held, among other meanings, equivalent to "belonging to". In the case of Melluish (Inspector of Taxes) v. B.M.I. (No.9) Ltd. and Ors - 1996 (218) ITR 548 (HL), it has been held that a "property belongs to a person if he is in law or in equity the absolute owner of it. Fox L.J. in Stokes v. Costain Property Investments Ltd. - 1984 (1) W.L.R 763 said at page 769, I agree that "belong" and "belonging" are not terms of art. They are ordinary English words. It seems to me that in ordinary usage they would not be satisfied by limited interests. For example, I do not think one would say that a chattel "belongs" to X if he merely had the right to us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
