TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 308X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 04-(Commr.), dated 12-7-2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore. 2. The Commissioner in his order has denied the benefit of SSI Notification 1/93 to the appellants on the ground that they had used the brand name "Mr. Butler" for their Soda Making Machines during the period from August, 1995 to 27th September, 1996. This Brand name has been owned by another unit M/s. Protech ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against M/s. PAL to deny the benefit of SSI exemption on the ground that they were using the brand name owned by the appellant, the proceedings culminated in the Order of the DC, Ernakulam II Division No. 383/2000, dated 10-11-2000 allowed the benefit. In view of the above position a SCN dated 24-8-2000 was issued to the appellant. The Commissioner, in his Order No. 31/2002, dated 12-6-2002 confi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings by order dated 25-1-1995. The order dated 25-1-95 has not been challenged and it has become final. M/s. PAL had withdrawn their application for registration of Trade Mark on 8-11-2002. Since the entire issue was dropped by the AC in his order dated 25-1-95, there is absolutely no justification for the Commissioner to proceed against the appellants and confirm the demand. As the issue is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid that the appellants had given false information to the Department as the unit at Kerala was using the brand name even though they had conceded the same to the appellants in their affidavit filed before the AC. 6. We have gone through the rival submissions. As per the SSI Notification, benefit is not available if the appellant uses the brand name of another person. In this case, there is no e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame 'Mr. Butler'. In fact the records reveal that both the units have applied for the same brand name. In a situation like this, we cannot decide the ownership of the brand name. When the ownership of a brand name cannot be decided, we cannot say that one unit uses the brand name of another. Only if it is shown that the brand name is exclusive ownership of one, the other can be denied the benefit. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
