TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentioned in the said agreement would remain vested in all the parties including the appellant and the appellant was also allowed to use the same - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner. - W.P.Nos.25360 and 25361 of 2003 and W.P.M.P.Nos.31166 and 31167 of 2003 W.P.No.25360 of 2003 - - - Dated:- 7-7-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioners : Mr. S. Murugappan For the Respondents : Mr. T. Pramod Kumar Chopda ORDER Heard Mr.S.Murugappan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.T.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the show cause notices issued by the respondents demanding payment of basic excise duty allegi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62 and 1970 when he became one of the partner of the erstwhile HUF Firm. The appellant have been marketing his products only within his own marketing area. It is not the case of the Revenue that any other person is using the same Brand names in the same area. Similarly the appellant is not selling his goods outside his marketing area. So far his business is concerned the appellant appears to be the only legal owner of the Trade Mark within his marketing area. This has been clearly brought out in the Mutual Agreement dated 12.03.1993 which has been duly presented on 12.03.1993 itself for registration whereas the impugned Notification No.59/94 came into effect only from 01.04.1994 and hence no motive can be attributed against the appellant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same to the specified goods manufactured by the appellant and marketing the same within his own marketing area in exclusion of others. On perusing the trade mark certificates, Decree of the Civil Court, Mutual Agreement dated 12.03.1993 and also considering the above contentions, I find that the appellant is the legal owner of the brand names within his marketing area. 5. It is thus manifest that the appellant has been using his own brand name 'Kalimark' and it belongs to the appellant. In view thereof, the case of the appellant is squarely covered in its favour by the judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No.9157 of 2003 titled CCE, Hyderabad-IV v. Stangen Immuno Diagnostics decided on 19.03.2015 [2015 (318) E.L.T. 585 (S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
