TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t manufacturers to the benefit of small scale exemption in view of affixing the brand name 'REIZ' on the goods manufactured by them. The appellant M/s. Reiz Electrocontrols Pvt. Ltd. (REPL for short) and M/s. Reiz Enterprises (RE for short) both use the same brand name 'REIZ' on their goods and both availed themselves of the small scale exemption since the total value of the goods produced by each of them in a financial year remained within the prescribed limit under Central Excise Notification No. 1/93. 3.The facts leading to the present dispute are that M/s. RE is a proprietary concern of Shri Atul Agarwal and is engaged in the manufacture of Electronic Fan Regulators, Dimmers and Remote Control Switches under the brand name 'REIZ' sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1993. Therefore, the electronic transformers manufactured by M/s. REPL with the brand name 'REIZ' impugned in the present proceedings being manufactured subsequent to 1993 became ineligible for small scale exemption on account of the use of brand name 'REIZ' which belonged to another person (RE). On account of the subsequent transfer of the brand name of REPL, RE has also become ineligible for exemption in respect of the goods produced under that brand name subsequent to the transfer. 5.The submission of the appellants in the present appeals is that M/s. RE never manufactured electronic transformer and therefore, in respect of that item, the brand name REIZ belonged to M/s. REPL. It is also submitted that REPL had applied for registratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly bars the goods bearing the brand name of another person from the benefit of small scale exemption available to a manufacturer. The records of the case, particularly, the registration under the Trade Mark Act clearly show the infringement of this, provision of Notification. A contention which is contrary to the registration cannot be accepted. On the question of suppression of facts it is seen that each manufacturer made declarations like "we use brand name 'REIZ' which is owned by us", "we are not manufacturing goods affixed with brand/trade mark of another person" and availed of the exemption. It was nowhere stated that brand name REIZ belonged to RE in respect of electronic transformers or that RE had in 1993 applied for the registrat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e owner need not be a manufacturer of the goods in respect of which he owns the brand name. Also, whoever manufactures goods under a particular brand name, does not become the owner of that brand name too. Ownership of brand name does not follow manufacture of goods under that brand name. 10.However, there is merit in the appellant's claim that the price at which the goods were sold should be treated as cum-duty. This issue remains settled in favour of the appellants by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Srichakra Tyres v. C.C.E., Madras - 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361. Similarly, the impugned order itself has noted that party can avail the benefit of Modvat credit on the inputs used by them in the manufacture of electronic transfo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
