TMI Blog2007 (1) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of interest on the duty amount. It is stated that the decision of the Tribunal in appeal filed by M/s REIZ Enterprises was not challenged before the Supreme Court and was accepted. 2. When the appeal was initially decided before the remand by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal by its order dated 18-12-2002, upheld the Commissioner's order in regard to the denial of small scale unit exemption to the appellant company and the demand of duty against it as well as the penalty imposed on it. The demand of interest was also confirmed. 3. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court by its order dated 24-8-2006, relying on the directions which were given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court earlier in commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh II v. Bhalla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vail the benefit of small scale industries exemption under the said notification. It was alleged that the brand name "REIZ" belonged to the sole proprietary concern M/s. REIZ Enterprises up to 31-3-2000 and thereafter, it was transferred to the appellant company from 1-4-2000. The allegation was that the appellant company during the period prior to 1-4-2000 and the sole proprietary concern from 1-4-2000 had been manufacturing and clearing the same class of excisable goods under the brand name of "REIZ" and had wrongly claimed the benefit of a small scale exemption notification by making false declarations that the brand name of any other person was not affixed on their products. The Commissioner held that a brand name "REIZ" belonged to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rises up to 31-3-2000 and thereafter it was transferred to the appellant company from 1-4-2000. The allegation was that the appellant company during the period prior to 1-4-2000 and the sole proprietary concern from 1-4-2000 had been manufacturing and clearing the same class of excisable goods under the brand name of "REIZ" and had wrongly claimed the benefit of a small exemption notification by making false declarations that brand name of any other person was not affixed on their products. The Commissioner held that a brand name "REIZ" belonged to the sole proprietary concern M/s. REIZ Enterprises during the period 1996-2000 and it was sold to the appellant company REPL on 30-3-2000 and therefore, owned by the appellant after 31-3-2000. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her person and eversince the application for registration of the trademark "REIZ" was made by the appellant, from 1-6-1995, the appellant was manufacturing its own goods in that name. It was submitted that the registration certificate would relate back so as to cover the entire period of the show cause notice. As regards the issue of limitation, it was submitted that in the declarations made by the appellant, the disclosure about their trademark was already made all throughout the period under the show cause notice and therefore, the show cause notice issued on 3-5-2001 was beyond the prescribed period of one year. Moreover, since the declarations were already made about the use of the trademark "REIZ", there was no question of invoking the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration of the trade mark was made by the appellant on 1-6-1995, which fact is not disputed before us, the registration, though made on 11-11-2003 as per the certificate, would relate back to the date of making of the application, and that date was the deemed date of registration as per the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The certificate on which reliance is placed by the appellant has been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 23 of that Act under which the Registrar is empowered to issue a certificate in the said prescribed form. The registration of trade mark gives to the registered proprietor of such trade mark the exclusive right to use the same in relation to the goods in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r would have known that fact from his own record and also because of the requirement of Section 20, that the application for registration should be advertised in the prescribed manner. Therefore, merely because the trademark was earlier registered in the name of the sole proprietary concern M/s. REIZ Enterprises, it cannot be said that the appellant in whose name also the trademark came to be registered by virtue of the registration certificate dated 11-11-2003, which registration related back from 1-6-1995, was not entitled to the benefit of the SSI notification in respect of the goods manufactured by it under its own trademark. 11. It is pointed out that in a similar situation, where the matter was remanded, as noted by the Hon'ble th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
