TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a difference in the nature of logo and the word Lakshmi which was used by the assessee and held by order dt. 24/04/2008 that the assessee is entitled for SSI exemption as they are not used brand name or trade name of another - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/476, 477/2008-DB - Final Order No. 22339-22340 - Dated:- 22-8-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Ashok K. Arya, Technical Member Shri Dakshinamurthy, Advocate For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, Dy. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per : S. S. Garg Appellants have filed these two appeals against the common impugned order dt. 29/02/2008 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) wherein the Commissioner(Appeals) has dismissed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed contrary to the evidence on record as well as contrary to the binding judicial precedent on the same issue. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellants were carrying on the manufacturing activity from the year 1980 and selling the wet grinders affixing the name plates / stickers containing the house mark Lakshmi Lew and the other party M/s. Sri Lakshmi Industries, Coimbatore obtained Trade Mark Registration of Lakshmi on 13/2/1984. Hence the case of the Department that the appellants were using the trade mark of Lakshmi belonging to Sri Lakshmi Industries is untenable. In support of this submission, he relied upon the decision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and proceedings for infringement of the trade mark or passing of business or goods. The appellants filed a Civil Suit No.1296 of 1988 before the Hon ble High Court of Madras praying for a permanent injunction restraining Sri Lakshmi Industries from continuing the threats. The Hon ble High Court passed a temporary injunction order dt. 13/10/1988 that Sri Lakshmi Industries should not threaten the appellants regarding the use of the brand name Lakshmi . The Court vide judgment dt. 11/02/1997 held that the interim injunction granted was made permanent and the court further held that Sri Lakshmi Industries was not prevented from taking any lawful action in terms of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act against the appellants. But thereafter Sri La ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004(172) ELT 195 (T)] iv. Jayaswals Neco Ltd. Vs. CCE [2007(8) STR 305 (SC)] 4.4. He also submitted that the appellant has a bona fide belief that they were entitled for SSI exemption as various judicial decisions were in their favour during the disputed period and for this submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. SNS (Minerals) Ltd. Vs. UOI [2007(210) ELT 3 (SC)] ii. Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE [2002(146) ELT 481 (SC)] iii. Padmini Products Vs. CCE [1989(43) ELT 195 (SC)] iv. CCE Vs. Surat Textile Mills Ltd. [2004(167) ELT 379 (SC)] v. UOI Vs. Sonnenflex Abrasives (P) Ltd. [2016(343) ELT 57 (Bom.)] 5. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned Commissioner has also relied upon the decision in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. and other decisions which have now been relied upon by the Revenue to come to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled for SSI benefit as they have not used the same brand name belonging to another company. Besides, we also find that the subsequent decision of the Commissioner has been accepted by the Department has not appeal has been filed. Therefore in view of the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Marsons Fan Industries (supra) wherein it has been held that for the same assessee, a subsequent order of the same Collector holding goods as non-excisable, attained finality as Department has accepted the said decision, hen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
