TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Tribunal and before the Assessing Officer, does not entitle the appellants to similar relief. As there is no denial that the trade mark is being used in common by both appellants, the learned Tribunal should have considered this aspect - Following decision of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Bhalla Enterprises [2004 (9) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of assessee. - Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of the appellant, it has held to the contrary, though, it was accepted before the Tribunal that both the appellants use the same trademark. It is further submitted that the mere fact that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was not produced before the Assessing Officer, is entirely irrelevant as there was no occasion at that stage to produce the MOU nor was any order passed requirin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion, namely, the common use of a trademark by two different entities arose, has while basing its opinion on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Bhalla Enterprises [2004 (173) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.), held as follows :- 11. Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of C.C.E., Chandigarh v. Bhalla Enterprises while dealing with similar situation held thus :- 6. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of exemption. An assessee would also be entitled to the benefit of the exemption if the brand name belongs to the assessee himself although someone else may be equally entitled to such name. 12. In view of aforesaid judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court, prima facie, we are of the view that the appellant has been able to make a strong prima facie case, in appeal which justifying the waiver o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
