2017 (3) TMI 1737

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Sunil and Ms. Shreya Dahiya, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri H.C. Saini, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Justice Satish Chandra, President]. - The present appeals are filed against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 626-629, dated 1-11-2010. The period in dispute is April, 2002 to 31-3-2005. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, a proprietary ship firm, during the pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Saini, Ld. DR. 4. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, it appears that the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 18 of the impugned order, has observed that "the said brand is not registered in the name of any person/firm/company during the relevant period, accordingly no one is the owner of the said brand. Even as per show cause notice, it is a matter of record that the impugned .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... restricted and hence the provisions of Notification No. 1/93 for denying the benefit as SSI unit could not be invoked in this case. We also note that the Apex Court had an occasion to examine as to what a brand name is. After quoting from the Narayan's Book on Trade Mark held that the product mark and house mark are different inasmuch as the house mark indicated the firm or the person manufacturi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X