TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1086X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n all cases - registration of assignment cannot be put as a condition to establish the fact of assignment - benefit allowed. Regarding the other brand names which are unregistered, alleged to have belonging to other persons, we note that the evidences submitted did not categorically establish the ownership of such brands with any other specific person. The impugned order examined in detail the scope of these names and also as to fact whether these can be called as brand names. It is recorded that TURBOTEK is the name representing to a trading firm and not identified as brand name of any product and in fact the name was registered later with one of the respondent and the same was not objected to by any other person. Similarly, the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates that the exemption of small scale industry shall not apply to specified goods which bear a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another person. The case of the Revenue is that these two respondents have manufactured batteries using different brand names of others. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against these respondents alongwith others which concluded in the confirmation of Central Excise duty of ₹ 31,42,252/- and ₹ 28,05,445/- alongwith imposition of penalties on the respondents as well as various other persons under various provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. On appeal filed by the respondents, the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned orders dropped the demands. Aggrieved by these orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it is not a brand name belonging to any person. It is a generic name and it was only later registered by M/s Mandideep Rubber Products. Similar to TURBOTEK the other names namely SUPER, EMRALD, MAGIC are all free flouting names not attributable to any particular person who can claim any link with the name and their specific product. Various small dealers of batteries requested for supply of batteries with these names. There is no evidence that these are brand names of these dealers and as such the bar in the notification will not apply to the facts of the present case. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. On the first issue of registered brand names having been assigned to the respondents, we find the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idences submitted did not categorically establish the ownership of such brands with any other specific person. The impugned order examined in detail the scope of these names and also as to fact whether these can be called as brand names. It is recorded that TURBOTEK is the name representing to a trading firm and not identified as brand name of any product and in fact the name was registered later with one of the respondent and the same was not objected to by any other person. Similarly, the impugned order recorded that names SUPER, MAGIC and EMRALD were also affixed on the goods when cleared to specific dealers as per the request of those dealers. There is no evidence to show that these names were brand names belonging to these dealers. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
