9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (11) TMI 194X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : V.K. Agrawal, Member (J)]. - The issue involved in these two appeals, filed by Revenue is whether M/s. Pilot Products were clearing the excisable goods manufactured by them bearing the brand name of another person. 2. Shri Vikas Kumar, learned S.D.R., submitted that M/s. Pilot Products, respondents, manufacture desert coolers under the brand name "PILOT" which belongs to M/s. Pilot (India); ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in the case of C.C.E. v. Fine Industries, 2002 (146) E.L.T. 53 (T-LB). The learned S.D.R. further, submitted that the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Fine Industries has been set aside by the Supreme Court in C.C.E. v. M/s. Bhalla Enterprises, 2004 (173) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.) wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that for the purpose of attracting the mischief of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all scale industry is available subject to fulfilment of various conditions specified in the notification. The benefit of this notification is not available to the small scale industry if the excisable goods manufactured by them are affixed with the brand name of another person. In the present matters, the respondents are manufacturing desert coolers bearing the brand name "PILOT" which as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of the specified goods manufactured by the assessee". The Supreme Court has, further, held that "there is no requirement for the owner of the trade mark using the name or mark with reference to any particular goods. The object of the exemption notification was neither to protect the owners of the trade mark, trade name nor the consumers from being misled…... The object of the notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
