2000 (6) TMI 615

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ued denying exemption under Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2-1993. Consequently, a demand was made of Rs. 6,19,464/- on the branded goods. Detailed reply had been filed contending that goods manufactured were not of "Decon", trade name belonging to another and that brand name "Decon" belonged to the firm itself. This contention of the appellant was negatived by Order-in-Original No. 77/96 dated 26-8-1996. By that Order, ld. Commissioner confirmed the demand made in the show cause notice and on account of the difference in the stock a further duty amounting to Rs. 68,634/- was also imposed. Invoking the provisions contained in Rule 173Q of the Rules penalty of Rs. 1,50,000/- was also imposed on the appellant. Shri Livinder Singh, Partner of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the goods manufactured by M/s. Strebor Designs with the Trade Mark "Decon" will be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2-1993. If the manufacturer, namely, M/s. Strebor Designs is the owner of Trade Mark "Decon", it is common case that they are entitled to the benefit under Notification No. 1/93. Therefore a short question is whether M/s. Strebor Designs are the owners of Trade Mark at all. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to note that over and above the goods manufactured by M/s. Strebor Designs, the Company led by Shri Livinder Singh who was marketing the goods have goods manufactured by other manufacturers. He sold the same without affixing the Trade Mark "Decon''. In other words, no other product marketed by Shr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bsp;     C.C.E., Ahmedabad v. Vikshara Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1996 (87) E.L.T. 499 (T) followed 2.       CCE v. Begen Industries - 1999 (107) E.L.T. 213 (T) 3.       CCE v. ESBI Transmissions P. Ltd. - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 292 (Cal.). 4.       CCE v. Rajdhani Plywood Ind. P. Ltd.- 2001 (135) E.L.T. 91 (Tri.) = 2000 (36) RLT 892 (T) Ld. Commissioner states that the decision of this Tribunal in opus India stands overruled by the decision of the Madras High Court in Kali Aerated Works v. U.O.I. 1995 (76) E.L.T. 265 and Bell Products v. Union of India, 1995 (78) E.L.T. 404. In the first case there was no assignment o....