9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fittings with brand name "Gprecision" claiming it as his own. On the investigation carried out by the revenue, it was found that the said brand name was also being used by some other firms and for the electrical conduit pipes, switches, sockets, plugs etc. On the conclusion of such investigations a show cause notice was issued to the appellant for denial of the SSI exemption claimed by them under Notification No. 8/98-C.E., dated 2-6-98 and Notification No. 8/99-C.E,, dated 28-2-99. The adjudicating authority in the first round held in favour of the appellant that the appellant is eligible to avail benefit of SSI exemption on these brands as these brands were not used by any other person, on identical goods. Revenue aggrieved by such order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said trade marks application was not rejected by the authorities they were under the bona fide belief that they were eligible for the benefit of SSI exemption. He draws our attention to the application made by them and to the letter written by the trade marks authorities. He also draws out attention to the letter dated 24-1-2008 wherein the Trade Marks Registrar had informed the appellant that their application for registration of this trade mark is processed further to issue registration certificate in their favour. He submits that all this activity of the appellant during the early days makes it clear that they were under bona fide belief they are eligible to benefit under SSI Notification. He submits that since they were using their own ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 (221) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) that the non-disclosure of theuse of brand name which enabled the assessee to market the product and derive the benefit would squarely apply in this case also. He submits that the said brand name "()Gprecision()" was known in the market for electrical goods and the appellant herein wanted to take advantage of the same and hence was using the same on his product i.e. rigid PVC pipes and fittings. He submits that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CCE v. Bhalla Enterprises, 2004 (173) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.). It is his submission that the Apex Court in the case of Bhalla Enterprises has clearly held that brand name of others, if used in respect of goods of other class or kind, be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PVC pipes and fittings by claiming benefit of SSI Notification Nos. 8/98 and 8/99. We also find that this bona fide belief is strongly supported by the subsequent development, wherein the trade marks authorities, have clearly indicated that application for registration for such brand/trade marks is being proceeded ahead and registration certificate will be issued. As such, we find that the appellant was entitled to hold a view that the said trade mark was their own and as such they are eligible for the benefit of the said SSI Notification. We find that the reliance placed by the ld. Counsel in the judgment in the order of the Tribunal in the case of SLM Glass Works (supra) squarely covers the issue in their favour: "4. On a careful conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
