2001 (3) TMI 481

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., for the Revenue. 3. Intervalve, B.V., a company in Netherlands, entered into an agreement on 8-3-1989 with Eureka Investment Pvt. Ltd. The agreement was to permit Eureka Investment Pvt. Ltd. to manufacture and sell Butterfly/Check valves using the know-how given by Intervalve. The agreement in paragraph 9 provided as under : "TRADE MARK It is expressly declared by Intervalve that to its best knowledge and belief the use by the Licensee of the Trade Mark will not encroach on the rights of third parties." Mr. Parekh submits that at a later date the name of the Indian company was changed to Intervalve (India) Pvt. Ltd. but he has not placed on record relevant documents. The Indian company filed classification list claiming b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6-1992. 4. In the meanwhile, show cause notice dated 3-6-1991 was issued demanding duty of 3,53,577.61 for the period 1-10-1989 to 31-3-1990. It was alleged that the assessees had suppressed the fact that the brand name used by them was owned by a foreign manufacturer. The extended period under Section 11A was invoked. The jurisdictional Commissioner upheld the charge and confirmed the duty as above and also imposed penalty of Rs. 35,000/-. The assessees have filed these two appeals against these two orders. 5. We have carefully perused the application made by the Assistant Collector before the Collector (Appeals) and also the show cause notice demanding differential duty. Both these documents presume and allege that the mar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bservation. This was however not approved by the larger bench as per the judgment in the case of Namtech Systems & Ors. v. CCE, Bangalore & Ors. [2000 (115) E.L.T. 238 (T) = 2000 (36) RLT 35 (CEGAT)]. 8. Even then the earlier claim made by the assessees would survive and that is there was no question of any permission given to them to use the brand name of the collaborators and that the collaborators did not have any brand name of their own. The learned counsel told us during the hearing that "iv" was merely abbreviation of the manufacturer's name and that it did not in any way amount to becoming a brand name registered or otherwise. Smt. Arya contested this and dwelt on the interpretation of the term 'brand name' made in the same n....