9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecome the owner of the same and the Richfield had not been using the brand name and, therefore, it cannot be alleged that the assessee had used the brand name of another person. The Commissioner, who has also noted that the revenue did not investigate on the aspect of the fact as to whether the brand name was being used by its owner even after the assignment. The finding recorded by the Commissioner is re-produced herein below : "I have carefully examined the facts of the case, the order (original), the grounds of appeal and the submissions made both written and oral at the time of personal hearing held on 11-2-2002. The impugned order reflects that the demand has been confirmed on the ground that the appellant is not the owner of the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointment as such, either in will or under Bankruptcy Acts, as the case may be. The word 'assign' does not mean 'heir', it means a person substituted for another by an act of some kind or another. [Doe De Lews (1842) 152 E.R. 28] I also find that the decision relied upon by the appellant reported in 1992 (62) E.L.T. 447 (T) is also applicable to the facts of this case. Be that as it may, I find that, both the assignor and the assignee hail from Hubli and both are manufacturers. It was but a simple matter for the adjudicating authority to seek confirmation whether the assignors continue to manufacture the goods assigned to the assignees of the brand name (the appellants) or it is otherwise. It was imperative on the part of the adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Revenue, the mere fact that the assignment was not registered could not alter the position. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Learned Counsel also relied on the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of CCE, Rajkot v. West Coast Diesels Ltd. - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 103 (Tribunal) wherein the benefit of SSI exemption granted was held to be correct as the assessee was using the brand name under a deed of assignment. The same was expressed in the case of Bullworker Enterprises v. CCE, Mumbai-IV - 2002 (143) E.L.T. 588 (Tri. - Mumbai). Learned Advocate submits that the finding recorded by the Commissioner is supported by these rulings and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. On a careful consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
