Court directs further examination on trademark assignment for tax exemption

The court remitted the matter back to the Settlement Commission for further examination and conclusive findings on the assignment of the trademarks 'LORIS' and 'VALENTINE'. It was clarified that registration of the trademark was not mandatory for availing exemption under notification No. 8/2003-C.E. The Settlement Commission was directed to reconsider the genuineness of the assignment deed and make conclusive findings on the assignment of the trademark to the petitioner, allowing all parties to present additional evidence if necessary. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to the finding of Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission regarding genuineness of assignment deed for trademark 'LORIS' and 'VALENTINE', entitlement for SSI exemption under notification No. 8/2003-C.E.

Judgment Summary:

Genuineness of Assignment Deed:
The writ petition challenged the Settlement Commission's finding questioning the genuineness of the assignment deed for the trademarks 'LORIS' and 'VALENTINE'. The counsel for both parties agreed that reconsideration was necessary regarding the gift deed made by Shri Shyam Sunder Sachdeva in favor of his sons, the partners in the petitioner-firm. It was clarified that registration of the trademark was not mandatory for availing exemption under notification No. 8/2003-C.E. The trademark 'LORIS' was owned by Shri Shyam Sunder Sachdeva, and although the registration was done later, the assignment deed dated 8-6-2004 was valid even before registration. The matter was remitted back to the Settlement Commission for further examination and conclusive findings on the assignment of the trademark.

Entitlement for SSI Exemption:
The judgment emphasized that registration of the trademark was not a prerequisite for claiming SSI exemption under the relevant notification. The date of the assignment deed was crucial, and since the trademark was not registered at that time, the requirement of applying to the trademark registry for transfer did not arise. The Settlement Commission was directed to reconsider the genuineness of the assignment deed and make conclusive findings on the assignment of the trademark to the petitioner, allowing all parties to present additional evidence if necessary. The consequential orders were to be made by the Settlement Commission based on the revised findings.

This writ petition was disposed of with the above observations.

---