TMI Blog2006 (9) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. This appeal filed by the assessee is against an order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) denying certain input duty credits to the appellants. There is no representation for the appellants today despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. The respondent is represented by learned SDR. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to keep this old ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objected to by the department, who took the stand that the so-called logo used by the appellants was not a brandname or trademark but only a house mark and, therefore, the goods cleared under such house mark did not qualify to be classified under SH 3303.10 attracting duty. In other words, the department was of the view that the finished goods of the appellants were not P or P medicame ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra). In the case considered by the Apex Court, a clear distinction was brought out between a trademark and a house mark . A trademark/brandname was held to be one establishing a connection, in the course of trade, between the product and the brandname-owner, whereas a house mark was considered to be one which was intended to project the manufacturer s image in the market. In the case consid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ark ( logo in the language of the appellants) which was affixed on the finished goods in question was ALFRED BERG . Obviously, this mark was only intended to project the image of M/s. Alfred Berg Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. in the market and hence should clearly be identifiable as a house mark of the company as rightly held by the lower appellate authority. The finished goods in question should, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
