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
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Trademark Use Case: Appeal Allowed for Plywood Manufacturer & Trader</h1> <h3>EMKAY INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMR. OF C. EX., CALCUTTA-I</h3> The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the first appellant, a plywood manufacturer, determining that their use of the brand/logo 'MERINO' alongside their own ... SSI Exemption - Brand name - Notification 175/86-C.E. Issues Involved: Determination of eligibility for small-scale exemption Notification No. 175/86-C.E. based on the use of a specific brand/logo on plywood products.Facts: The appellants, engaged in plywood manufacturing, used the brand/logo 'MERINO' along with their own brand 'Pelican' on their products. Central Excise Officers seized plywood from their premises and from a trader's premises. The Commissioner held that the use of 'MERINO' brand/logo made them ineligible for the exemption, leading to confiscation and penalties.Arguments: Appellants argued that the use of 'MERINO' did not imply a connection to the large-scale manufacturer. Departmental Representatives contended that the use of the brand/logo disentitled the appellants from the exemption, citing relevant legal precedents.Analysis: The Tribunal examined the markings on the products and the definition of brand name/trade name as per Explanation VIII of the Notification. It was found that the appellants' brand 'Pelican' was prominently displayed, while 'MERINO' was used in a less prominent manner. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' markings did not indicate a trade connection with the large-scale manufacturer, thus entitling them to the exemption.Decision: The appeal of the first appellant was allowed, granting them the benefit of the notification. Consequently, the appeal of the second appellant, a trader, was also allowed. The impugned Order was set aside, providing relief to both appellants.