TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 692X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration of the above trade mark by retiring partners and shall give no objection certificate for the same. Subsequent to that, the respondents had taken registration for RIAT brand under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 for Centreless Grinding Machines, Planning Machines, Surface Grinding Machines vide Registration No. 457653 on 30.11.1999 and for Round Bar Straightening Machines on 15.10.2001. Thus they became owners of the brand from 30.11.1999 / 15.10.2001 respectively - Commissioner has rightly concluded that the brand name was the trade mark registered in the name of the respondents prior to the period of demand under the SCN which is from 2003-04 (26.8.2003-03/2004) to 2007-08. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these, Sh. Ajit Singh and Sh. Tegbahadur Singh retired from the partnership of M/s RMT and formed their own firm separately under the name of M/s RIAT Grinders. They were allowed to manufacture the above said four machines under the brand name RIAT as per the Deed of Dissolution of Partnership dated 1.9.1978. 2.4 Revenue s claim is that the goods of the respondents bearing the brand name RIAT connect to M/s RMT, who are the owners of the said brand to leverage its goodwill and simultaneously avail the benefit of SSI Exemption. The matter was adjudicated by the Commissioner who in the adjudication order dropped the proceedings under the said show cause notice. Aggrieved from the same, the Revenue is before this Tribunal. 3. Ld. AR appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (I) Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 (232) ELT 357(Tri. Mum.) (vii) Elex Industies vs. CCE, Chandigarh-I - 2003 (158) ELT 602 (Tri. Del.) (viii) CCE, Chennai Vs. Sivanesan Co. - 2005 (190) ELT 236 (Tri. Chennai) (ix) Lakshmi Plastics vs. CCE, Guntur - 2005 (182) ELT 356 (Tri. Bang.) (x) CCE, Cochin Vs. Mamma Products - 2004 (172) ELT 192 (Tri. Bang.) 4. Ld. Advocate for the respondents reiterated the findings in the order of the Commissioner and argued that Clause 10 was subject to Clause 8 of Deed of Dissolution dated 1.9.1978. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 6.1 We find that the crucial issue to be decided in this case is whether for the purpose of Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003, the respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stration of the above trade mark by retiring partners and shall give no objection certificate for the same. Subsequent to that, the respondents had taken registration for RIAT brand under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 for Centreless Grinding Machines, Planning Machines, Surface Grinding Machines vide Registration No. 457653 on 30.11.1999 and for Round Bar Straightening Machines on 15.10.2001. Thus they became owners of the brand from 30.11.1999 / 15.10.2001 respectively. Commissioner has therefore rightly concluded that the brand name was the trade mark registered in the name of the respondents prior to the period of demand under the show cause notice which is from 2003-04 (26.8.2003-03/2004) to 2007-08. 6.4 In this backgroun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artner. It was held that SSI exemption is available. The same view was taken in case of CCE vs. Kesavardhini Products 2006 (198) ELT 146 (CESTAT). 3.14 In case of CCE vs. Mamma Products 2004 (172) ELT 192 (CESTAT), it was held that brand name can be held jointly by two co-owners. In that case, both units will be entitled for SSI concession. 3.15 From the judgments stated above, it becomes amply clear that brand name can be owned by more than one person i.e. joint ownership is permissible. 7. In view of the above, we find no infirmity in the order of Commissioner and the same is sustained. 8. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. ( Order pronounced in the court on 11/04/2017 ) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
