9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 691X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent ORDER Per: (Dr.) Satish Chandra The present appeal is filed against order in appeal No.19/2017 dated 06.03.2017. Period of dispute is April, 2010 to April, 2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in manufacturing of main switchgear and fuses unit. The appellant has claimed the SSI exemption which was denied by the lower authorities by mentioning that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t so the assessee was usually utilizing this brand name on their production which was within the SSI prescribed limit. So, they are entitled to the SSI exemption. 5. On the other hand, Shri M R Sharma, learned DR has justified the impugned order. He submits that the appellant are not entitled to use the brand name of any other person because it belonged to M/s. Bright Electrical. Lastly, he suppo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the trade mark need not necessarily be in respect of all goods unless registration has been so acquired and it is therefore, permissible in law to have same brand name for different classes of goods owned by different person, and in that background found in favour of the respondent and held that the Notification No.223/87-C.E., dated 22-9-1987 was applicable. When as a matter of fact it is hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
