TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,899/- and imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellants. 2. Learned Advocate, Shri M.P. Devnath appearing on behalf of the appellants has contended that on the dissolution of M/s. Chopra Electrical Sales Corporation, the brand name 'BENTEX' came to be owned by 3 partners viz. S/Shri Krishan Lal Chopra, Roshan Lal Chopra and Kundan Lal Chopra as per the mutual agreement dated 21-12-1984. The brand name/trade name 'BENTEX' was not owned by M/s. Chopra Electrical Sales Corporation but was registered in the name of the above 3 persons. M/s. Chopra Electrical Sales Corporation was dissolved with effect from 31-3-1984 and as such, the ownership of that firm was over on the brand name 'BENTEX'. The Chopra brothers have agreed between ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or in their arguments. 6. In terms of Clause 4 of the Notification 1/93-C.E., the appellants are not entitled to the benefit under this notification. 7. After hearing the rival submissions and perusal of the records, we do not find any merits in these appeals. Therefore, the same are dismissed. Sd/-(Krishna Kumar)Member (J) 8. [Contra per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - I have gone through the order as recorded by the learned Member (Judicial). I find myself unable to agree with the views with the decision taken in the order for the following reasons. 9. The learned Advocate for the appellants has relied upon the Final Order Nos. 497-504/2001-B, dated 20-3-2001 [2002 (139) E.L.T. 679 (Tribunal)] wherein the present appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....001. I, thus, allow the appeal by way of remand. Sd/- (V.K. Agrawal)Member (T) DIFFERENCE OF OPINION Whether the appeal filed by M/s. Chopra Electricals is to be rejected as ordered by the learned Member (Judicial) or the matter is to be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for re-consideration in view of the Tribunal's Final Order Nos. 497-504/2001-B, dated 20-3-2001 as ordered by Member (Technical). Sd./-(Krishna Kumar)Member (J) Sd./-(V.K. Agrawal)Member (T) 11. [Order per : G.R. Sharma, Member (T)]. - I have heard Shri B.L. Narasimhan, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri R.D. Negi, ld. DR for Revenue on the point of difference of opinion. The issue for determination in these appeals was whether exemption under Cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Chopra Electric Sales Corpn. did not exist after 31-8-1984, the partners of M/s. Chopra Electric Sales Corpn. who entered into agreement for using the logo 'BENTEX' individually as individuals or proprietors of proprietary concerns did not work. The individuals no doubt exist but they are working as partners in a partnership firm and therefore, they do not become the person as owners of the logo 'BENTEX'. Thus I find that the requirement of Clause 4 is not satisfied in the instant case as the person who can be termed as owner of the logo 'BENTEX' no longer exists. I further note that in the case of the same appellant the Tribunal earlier held that the appellant shall be eligible to the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 175/86 in....