TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Trademark owner granted exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE</h1> <h3>M/s Parag Enterprises, Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Authorised Signatory, Shri Rajesh Sisodia, Ex-Authorised Signatory Versus C.C.E., Kanpur</h3> M/s Parag Enterprises, Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Authorised Signatory, Shri Rajesh Sisodia, Ex-Authorised Signatory Versus C.C.E., Kanpur - TMI Issues:1. Whether the brand name TEGU, registered in India, allows for exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01/3/2003 when it belongs to a German company.2. Admissibility of Small Scale exemption to the registered owner of a brand name in India.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1:The appeal involved the question of whether the brand name TEGU, registered in India, entitles the appellant to exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01/3/2003, despite belonging to a German company. The appellant argued that they legally owned the brand name TEGU since 1996, supported by a certificate from the Trade Marks Registry. The First Appellate Authority allowed the appeal based on a certificate from the Registrar of Copyright and a certification from the German company stating TEGU was not their registered trademark. The Revenue contended that the certificate was for artistic work, not a transfer of the brand name, and there was no agreement with the German company for its use in India. The Revenue cited a case law precedent to support their argument.Issue 2:The second issue revolved around the admissibility of Small Scale exemption to the registered owner of a brand name in India. The Revenue argued that the appellant, even with the brand name registered in India, would not qualify for the exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01/3/2003. The Revenue relied on a case law precedent and highlighted that the exemption would not apply if a manufacturer affixes a brand name of a foreign person on goods. The judgment referred to a case where the exemption was denied due to the use of a foreign brand name, emphasizing the importance of ownership and eligibility for the grant of exemption.Conclusion:After hearing both parties and examining the case records, the Tribunal held that the appellant, as the registered owner of the brand name TEGU in India, was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01/3/2003. The Tribunal applied a precedent from the Calcutta High Court regarding a similar provision under a different notification to support their decision. Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
