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>Tribunal affirms decision on brand ownership dispute under Notification No. 1/93 and 16/97.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN Versus GEO ENGINEERING WORKS</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN Versus GEO ENGINEERING WORKS - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 463 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:The issue in this case is whether the respondents are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93, dated 28-2-1993 as amended by Notification No. 16/97, dated 1-4-1997, regarding the manufacture of steel cupboards bearing brand names Nova and Leader, alleged to belong to another manufacturer M/s. Noble Engineering Works.Summary:The appeal was brought by the Revenue challenging the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the original authority's order, stating that the Revenue failed to prove that Nova and Leader are brand names belonging to a specific person. The appellant contended that statements from individuals associated with both the respondent and Noble Engineering Works indicated that Nova and Leader are indeed the brand names of Noble Engineering Works. However, the respondent argued that other manufacturers also use the same brand names for similar goods. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue did not investigate this claim and did not provide a registration certificate for the brand names in question. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) finding and dismissed the appeal by the Revenue.This case highlights the importance of providing concrete evidence to establish ownership of brand names and the need for thorough investigation before denying benefits under relevant notifications.
TaxTMI 