Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (5) TMI 2046 - CESTAT MUMBAISSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - goods were being affixed with the logo/monogram ‘PTM’ which was allegedly owned by M/s Precision Testing Machines for whom the appellant had also undertaken manufacturing work - HELD THAT:- The use of the brand name belonging to another entity was a matter of consideration in the decision of the Tribunal in MINIMAX INDUSTRIES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI-II [2010 (1) TMI 1040 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that the acquisition of the good will by the manufacturer in relation to the name or logo used by him in relation to the particular product manufactured by him to be established before accusing another manufacturer of having used such name or logo for his product - The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS MINIMAX INDUSTRIES [2011 (1) TMI 782 - DELHI HIGH COURT], on appeal by Revenue, has held that the application of the principles pertaining to use of brand name by the Tribunal could not be faulted and Court proceeded on the basis that TATA was a brand name and in fact it was established that this brand name was allowed to be used by the TATA to the said assessee. It is seen that no case has been made out by the Central Excise authorities that any benefit was derived by the appellant in terms of goodwill or market enhancement or that the appellant was not entitled to use the brand name - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|