2015 (10) TMI 1170

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... For Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar, Consultant Per: P.K. Das The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the Adjudication order was set aside. 2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the Respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Power Driven Water Pumps. A Show Cause Notice dt.08.02.2006 was issued, proposing demand of duty alongwit .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of ownership to the Trade Mark authority. It is his contention that this document cannot be accepted as they have not taken place at the time of investigation by the Department. So, the demand of duty is liable to be upheld. It is also submitted that one of the partner of the Respondent is party of brand name holders. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent submits .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unsel placed a certified copy of the trade mark certificate. 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find force in the submission of the learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent. We find that Trade Mark authority by Order No.TM-46/70/381, dt.31.12.2008, certified that M/s Harsh Industries, amongst others are registered as subsequent proprietor of Trade Mark "HARSH" as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X