TMI Blog2004 (9) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the exemption. The only investigation which was held related to the question whether the respondent was a dummy unit of Corona Plus Industries. It is submitted that the Department cannot take advantage of the investigation held in such connection to justify a time-barred claim relating to the first issue. In any event it is submitted that the respondent-firm had all along contended that it was also the owner of the brand name/trade mark in question. In fact, the application made by the respondent for registration of the trade mark in question, namely, "Saving Plus" had been made on 16-10-97. This application had been allowed by the trade mark authorities under the Trade Mark Act on 22-12-2003 with retrospective effect i.e. 6-10-97. It is, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person. 2. The specified goods referred to in Paragraph-4 have been set out in the annexures to the notification. It is not in dispute that the industries which manufactured and cleared specified goods up to the limits prescribed by the notification would not be entitled to the exemption if the specified goods bear a brand name or trade name of another person. The question which has been raised is whether the brand name or trade name should have been used by such other person in respect of the specified goods of the same kind or class as the goods manufactured by the assessees claiming exemption. 3. Paragraph 4 and Explanation IX of Notification have been construed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel appearing on behalf of the assessees relate to decisions involving Trade Mark disputes and are in the circumstances not apposite. 4. The basic rule in interpretation of any statutory provision is that the plain words of the statute must be given effect to. It is only in the case of ambiguity that the principle of strict/liberal interpretation would arise. In the decision of Mangalore Chemicals Fertilizers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.) relied upon by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessees, there was no dispute that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification. The only dispute was as to whether the assessee should be permitted to avail of the benefit in the absence of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exemption is sought, the same/similar brand name with the intention of indicating a connection with the assessees' goods and such other person or uses the name in such a manner that it would indicate such connection. Therefore, if the assessee is able to satisfy the assessing authorities that there was no such intention or that the user of the brand name was entirely fortuitous and could not on a fair appraisal of the marks indicate any such connection, it would be entitled to the benefit of exemption. An assessee would also be entitled to the benefit of the exemption if the brand name belongs to the assessee himself although someone else may be equally entitled to such name. 7. The decision in Rukhmani Pakkwell Traders (supra) and Mahaan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the brand name/trade mark in question for the relevant period. C.A. No. 1872/2004 1877/2004 : CCE v. M/s. Prakash Gramodyog Samiti Ors. : 10. In these appeals the Tribunal had held against the assessee. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. Nevertheless the matters are remanded back to the Tribunal to consider whether the assessee is entitled to claim ownership in respect of the brand/trade name for the period 6-10-77 to 22-12-2003. C.A. No. 1985/2004 : CCE v. Fine Industries : 11. This appeal is allowed. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal on the question of limitation. C.A. No. 2893/1999 : CCE v. Gopal Soap Industries : 12. This appeal is taken on board and is allowed and the decision of the Tribunal is set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of 6 months thereafter. 17. According to the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the documents on the basis of which the impugned demand has been raised against the respondent were available with the Department as on the date of the seizure. There was as such no question of holding any further investigation into any further fact for the issue of the demand on the allegation that the assessees had wrongly availed of the exemption. The only investigation which was held related to the question whether the respondent was a dummy unit of Corona Plus Industries. It is submitted that the Department cannot take advantage of the investigation held in such connection to justify a time-barred claim relating to the first iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
