2014 (2) TMI 1054

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... avi Chopra, Advocate, for the Respondent ORDER Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue has preferred the present appeal. We have heard both sides duly represented by learned AR, Shri R.K. Mathur, appearing for the Revenue and learned Advocate, Shri Ravi Chopra, Advocate appearing for the respondent-assessee. 2. The respondents are engaged in the manufac .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... fore Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the same by observing that the Revenue has not alleged or disclosed the persons to whom the said brand name belonged to. Accordingly, by relying upon the Tribunal's decisions, he set aside the demand on merits. He also observed that earlier show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 16-12-1996 and as such, Revenue was aware of the fact of use of bran .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... notice was in respect of seizure of goods, seized on the date of visit of officers, but we note that during the relevant period, use of brand name of others on goods different than the one manufactured by the brand name owner was held to be permissible by various decisions of Tribunal. Even if we accept the Revenue's contention that the said brand name belonged to reputed manufacturer, they have n .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X