TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is thus, clear that the brand name belongs to M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd., Bangalore, which brand name is allowed to be used by the respondent and in these circumstances, following Explanation 8 to the Notification No. 175/86 dated 1.3.1986 would clearly become applicable. - principle of law is no more res integra and has been decided by this Court authoritatively in couple of judgments. - order of the CESTAT is erroneous and warrants to be set aside - Decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I Vs. Mahaan Dairies [2004 (2) TMI 73 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided in favour of Revenue. - Civil Appeal No. 2779 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 8-5-2015 - A K Sikri And Rohinton Fali Nariman,JJ. For the Appellant : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal before the Tribunal. The said appeal resulted in the remand order passed by the Tribunal directing the adjudicating authority to carry out de novo adjudication after remand. The Commissioner passed orders dated 22.11.2001 confirming its earlier order. Against that order, the respondent filed the appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'CESTAT') which has been allowed setting aside the decision of the Commissioner, holding that the brand name VETCARE belongs to the respondent and since it is a user of its own brand name, the case shall not come within the expression mentioned in the Notification dated 01.03.1993. We find from the record, through which we were taken wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that their argument cannot be accepted after the amendment of Notification No. 1/93 with effect from 1.4.1994 and for easy reference, I reproduce the brand name clause: - The exemption contained in this Notification shall not apply to the specified goods bearing a brand name (registered or not) of another person. In the face of the aforesaid findings which were arrived at on the basis of record, we fail to understand as to how the CESTAT could still hold that the brand name VETCARE and the logo which were owned by M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd., Bangalore registered in their name, belongs to the respondent. The CESTAT has merely gone by the assertion of the respondent that M/s. Tetragon Chemie (P) Ltd., Bangalore has permi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of the person. Therefore, what follows form the reading of this Explanation is that if the brand name issued in relation to the specified goods indicating a connection in the course of the trade between such specified goods and some other person using the name, it would fit the description and the matter would be covered by the mischief of Explanation VIII. It is no where stated that brand name which is the name of other person and is being used by the SSI which is claiming benefit has to be in relation to same goods. Therefore, that could not have been reason to drop the proceedings and the CEGAT was not justified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
