TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 343X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers. It is also submitted by the appellant that Shri. Rajesh Kumar Harshdrai Punatar is a partner in M/s. Abhay Industries from 01.04.2001 onwards. In this fact, it is opined that the appellant firm using the brand name of Bintex for which the appellant firm partner Shri Rajesh Harshdrai Punatar is one of the owner of the brand name Bintex , the appellant firm is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. This Tribunal in various judgments cited by the appellant held that if brand is owned by any of the member or jointly by the family, any member of the family if use the said brand, it cannot be said that assessee is using the brand name of other person. The present case is on much better footing for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant submits that the Bintex brand is registered in the name of family members of the appellant and appellant is also one of the owner of the Bintex brand as per the Trade Mark Registration therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant have used brand name of another person accordingly, the appellant is eligible for SSI exemption under notification no.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. He further submits that even in case though the brand belongs to family member, all the family members are entitle to use the brand for the purpose of availing SSI exemption. As regard the penalty imposed on Shri Rajesh Harshdrai Punatar, he submits that Shri Rajesh Harshdrai Punatar is a partner of M/s. Abhay Industries, therefore, the partner can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Harshdrai Punatar is a partner in M/s. Abhay Industries from 01.04.2001 onwards. In this fact, we are of the view that the appellant firm using the brand name of Bintex for which the appellant firm partner Shri Rajesh Harshdrai Punatar is one of the owner of the brand name Bintex , the appellant firm is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. We find that this Tribunal in various judgments cited by the appellant held that if brand is owned by any of the member or jointly by the family, any member of the family if use the said brand, it cannot be said that assessee is using the brand name of other person. The present case is on much better footing for the reason that the appellant s partner Shri Rajesh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
