TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be alleged that the appellant is using trademark of another person. In fact, appellant is a manufacturer of goods under the said logo and SKPL has merely applied for registration of said logo for trading of goods. Furthermore, the logo Touch wood was registered in the name of the appellant and the application filed by M/s SKPL for registration of touchwud logo is rejected by Trademark Registry. As the Trademark Registry has recognized the logo Sunshine used by M/s SKPL all different and registered the same in the name of the appellant. In that circumstances, benefit of SSI exemption cannot be denied to the appellant - Further, it is a fact of record that the logo Touchwud was registered in the name of the appellant and they are using the said logo as manufacturer whereas M/s SKPL has applied for registration of logo Touchwud being trader in their name and their application for registration has been rejected by the Trademark Registry. The appellant is not using brand name of another person and have not contravened Para 4 of the Notification No. 01/2003, Central Excise dated 01.03.2003, therefore is entitled to get the benefit of SSI exemption under the said notification - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty was imposed equal to 50% of the demand confirmed upto the period 14.05.2015 and for the remaining period, it was imposed 100% of the duty confirmed. The penalty of Rs. 10 lakh was also imposed on the Co-appellant. 5. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellants are before us. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submit that appellant is entitled to the benefit of exemption notification as it was not contravened para 4 thereof, as the case of the revenue revolves regarding the use of logo of SKPL by the appellant is factually incorrect, since the logo used by the appellant does not belong to SKPL. It is also submitted that the learned Adjudicating Authority has categorically noted the existence of two abovementioned different logos by giving a finding that as per the observations, I find that SKPL is using both trademarks and on their website out of which one is registered with their firm and another is not registered. Therefore, Adjudicating Authority itself has recognized two different Sunshine logos. Therefore, the stand taken by the revenue that appellant is using the brand name of another person is not sustainable. As the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Marks Registry vide Trade Mark no. 4201679 dated 10.06.2019 which established that the said logo used by the appellant on its final product was belonging to itself not to SKPL during the period of dispute. Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant is entitled for benefit of exemption Notification No. 08/2003 dated 01.03.2003. 9. He also submitted that without prejudice, duty demand confirmed/upheld needs to be re-quantified and extended period of limitation is not invokable, therefore, the demand of duty is barred by limitation. He also prayed that penalty is not imposable on the appellants. 10. On the other hand, the learned AR oppose the contention of learned Counsel and submits that it is evident from the records that Sunshine logo was used by SKPL and registered in their name. Therefore, the logo which has been used by the appellant belongs to M/s SKPL (another person), therefore in terms of Para 4 of SSI Notification No. 1/2003 dated 01.03.2003, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of the said exemption notification. Moreover, the Touchwood logo also belongs to SKPL as they applied for registration thereof. To support his contention, the learned AR relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that the respondent is using the brand name 'RIAT SONS' while the brand name 'RIAT was owned by M/s. RIAT Machine Tools (M/s.RMT). Admittedly, both the brand names were registered with the trade mark authority and recognized as not similar. It is documented from the brand name registration certificate dated 24.9.2005 submitted by the respondent and from para 4 of the show cause notice that the brand name used by the respondent is 'RIAT SONS' and by M/s. RMT is 'RIAT and the two brand names were not similar and were distinct brand names. In that circumstance, it cannot be said that the respondent is using brand name of another person. 14. Further, in the case of Bhamber Engineers (Supra), this Tribunal observed as under: Heard the parties and considered the submissions in detail. We find that the appellant is using the brand name BHAMBER 2015 and the brand name of M/s. Bhamber Udyog is HI BHAMBER both the brand names are reproduced as under:- We find that both the brand names are registered with Trade Mark authorities and are recognised as not similar and resembles to each other. The certificates of registration are reproduced hereun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
