9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 346X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Santosh, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)] - In this appeal filed by M/s. Unimode Calzatura Ltd., the issue, involved is whether they were affixing the brand name of another person on the goods manufactured by them so as to make them ineligible for the benefit of small-scale exemption. 2. Shri V.K. Gupta, learned Advocate, submitted that the Appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment that the brand name which is affixed by SSI unit on the goods manufactured by it belongs to other person; that it is only mentioned in the impugned Order that the use of term 'London' in the brand name leads to conclusion that the goods have connection with foreign based person. He also submitted that in their Classification declaration they have clearly declared their brand name "Caribou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is goes to show that the brand name does not belong to them. He, therefore, mentioned that the benefit of SSI notification is not available to the Appellants. 4. In reply the learned Advocate submitted that the disclaiming the words does not mean that the brand name does not belong to them. It only means that the registration of Trade Mark "of London" in their name will not give right to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name affixed by the Appellants in the case shows that the goods manufactured by them have connection with foreign based person. The identity of foreign based person is not mentioned either in the show cause notice or in the impugned Order. The Department has thus not succeeded in showing that the brand name in question belongs to another person. There is no force in the submissions of the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
