TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods manufactured by them. As such, we are of the view that there is intention on the part of the appellants to use the brand name ‘Prince’ which belonged to M/s. Kalsi Engineeers. Decision relied upon by the assessee in the case of Bhalla Enterprises [2004 (9) TMI 109 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] or in the case of Vetcare Organics P. Ltd [2004 (9) TMI 164 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] distinguished - decided against assessee. - E/1992/2006-EX(DB) - Final Order No. A/57389/2013-EX(DB) - Dated:- 7-8-2013 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (J) and Shri Manmohan Singh, Member (T) Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate, for the Appellant. Ms. Shweta Bector, A.R., for the Respondent. ORDER After hearing both sides duly represented by Shri J.P. Kaush ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue as they were aggrieved with the reduction of penalty amount. The same was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 971/2010-SM (BR), dated 1-9-2010 [2011 (264) E.L.T. 553 (Tri. - Del.)] vide which the Revenue s appeal was rejected by observing that in the absence of any evidence relating to knowledge about the use of brand name of others and any intention on the part of the assessee, no reasons were found to interfere in the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals). 3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that though the demand stands raised within the limitation period, keeping in view that there was no intention on the part of the assessee to avail undue benefit by endorsing his product with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d name was being intentionally used by the present appellant so as to convey the representation to the general public about the brand name. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. Appellants are not disputing the fact that Prince is belonging to M/s. Kalsi Engineeers and was registered in their name. Further the fact that the appellants were also manufacturing the identical goods i.e. centrifugal pumps, which was being manufactured by M/s. Kalsi Engineeers, in the brand name of Prince cannot be held to be reflecting upon their bona fide intention. Appellant being in the same business is expected to know about the ownership of the brand name, which they are putting on the goods manufactured by them. As such, we a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
