TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ium ladders under the brand name of SUMER which belongs to appellant No. 4. On conducting enquiries by the Central Excise Officers, it revealed that this brand name was got registered by appellant No. 4 with Trade Mark authorities in the year 1971 and they had been getting the aluminium ladders manufactured from appellant No. 1 under that brand name, on payment of fabrication charges. Similarly, appellant No. 3 had also been getting the ladders manufactured from appellant No. 1 in that very manner. On completion of enquiry, show cause notice was served through which duty demand of Rs. 14,71,045/- for the period 1994-95 to 28-9-1996 was raised by denying the benefit of exemption under Notification 1/93-CE, and penalty was proposed to be im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of the Notification. 3. On the other hand, the learned JDR has only reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 4. We have heard both the sides. We find that the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 1/93 had been denied to the firm appellant No. 1 solely on the ground that during the period in question, they had been using the brand name SUMER on the products, which belonged to appellant No. 4 (Sumer Co.). But we do not find any cogent and reliable evidence to substantiate this ground. We find that the initial registration of the brand name SUMER in the name of appellant No. 4 came into an end in the year 1985 and thereafter they never applied for its renewal. Therefore, they ceased to be the legal owner of the brand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002 (52) RLT 991 wherein it has been observed that the effective date of assignment deed assigning brand name would be the date mentioned therein and not the date of registration. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that appellant No. 4 by virtue of this assignment, became entitled to use the brand name SUMER in their own right. 6. In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above, it is difficult to conclude that the appellant No. 1 had used the brand name of another person so as to deny them the benefit of the small scale exemption Notification 1/93 for the period in dispute. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief if any, permissible ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
