Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2017 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1086 - AT - Central ExciseSSI exemption - use of Brand name which was assigned vide oral contract - manufacture of batteries - demand on the ground that they have manufactured batteries with the brand name of others - brand name assigned - benefit of N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01/03/2003 - Held that: - the persons to whom the said brand names belong have stated that they have assigned the brands in favour of respondent for the manufacture and supply of batteries to them - It is also recorded that even in the absence of written agreement the submission of the owner of the brand name is acceptable as there is no need for written agreement in all cases - registration of assignment cannot be put as a condition to establish the fact of assignment - benefit allowed. Regarding the other brand names which are unregistered, alleged to have belonging to other persons, we note that the evidences submitted did not categorically establish the ownership of such brands with any other specific person. The impugned order examined in detail the scope of these names and also as to fact whether these can be called as brand names. It is recorded that TURBOTEK is the name representing to a trading firm and not identified as brand name of any product and in fact the name was registered later with one of the respondent and the same was not objected to by any other person. Similarly, the impugned order recorded that names SUPER, MAGIC and EMRALD were also affixed on the goods when cleared to specific dealers as per the request of those dealers. There is no evidence to show that these names were brand names belonging to these dealers. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|