TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Exemption under Notification No.1/93-C.E. requires strict compliance; use of a registered trade mark (Clause 4) excludes it</h1> SC allowed the appeals, holding that entitlement to the Notification No.1/93-C.E. exemption must be determined by strict compliance with its terms. Where ... Notification No. 1/93-C.E. regarding exemption for scented supari based on brand name ownership - Held that:- Admittedly the brand name or trade name is the words 'ARR' with the photograph of the founder of the group. Merely because the registered trade mark is not entirely reproduced does not take the Respondents out of Clause 4 and make them eligible to the benefit of the Notification. The principles laid down in Circular No. 52/52/94-CX., dated 1-9-1994 has no relevance at all to the facts of this case. In this case admittedly there is an owner of the registered Trade Mark. Once the Respondents use that Trade Mark or a part thereof they get covered by Clause 4. The cases refereed have no application while considering whether a person is entitled to the benefits of the Notification or not. To be entitled to the benefits of a Notification a person has to strictly comply with the conditions of that Notification. If on a plain reading of the Notification the benefit is not available then merely on basis of principles applied in infringement cases benefit cannot be claimed. The Appeals are accordingly allowed as the impugned judgement of the Tribunal is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. In our view the impugned judgement of the Tribunal is clearly erroneous and unsustainable. It is accordingly set aside and that of the lower authorities restored. Issues:Interpretation of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. regarding exemption for scented supari based on brand name ownership.Analysis:The case involved traders claiming exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. for scented supari marketed under the brand 'ARR,' purchased from M/s. ARR Nutcon Products. The Notification exempts scented supari, but Clause 4 excludes goods bearing a brand name of another person. The Tribunal allowed the traders' appeal, relying on a Circular regarding ownership of brand names. However, the Supreme Court found the Circular inapplicable as the traders were not owners of the brand 'ARR' or the founder's photograph. The Court emphasized strict construction of Exemption Notifications and noted that the Tribunal erred in requiring the brand name to be used on the same goods for which it is registered. The Court clarified that any use of a brand name indicating a trade connection disqualifies from exemption, even if not on the same goods. The Court also rejected reliance on a different Circular and previous case laws on trademark infringement, emphasizing strict compliance with Notification conditions for claiming benefits. Ultimately, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, reinstating the lower authorities' decision and allowing the appeals with no costs awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
