2005 (9) TMI 488

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ellant. Shri J. Sankararaman, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. -  These appeals have been filed against Order-in-Appeal Nos. 36 & 37/98 dated 18-9-98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :- The respondents are the manufactures of Kesavardhini hair oil. There are act....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority. The Revenue has come before this Tribunal against the impugned order in appeal on the following grounds :- (a)     Here two different firms are owning the same brand name and as per Central Excise Notification No. 140/83 where the brand is owned by two different entities, none o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....heir own company, they would not be disentitled for claiming the benefit of the Notification. We see no reason to take a different view on this aspect." The Supreme Court having ruled as above, pointed out that in that case, the respondent was using Trade mark "MAHAAN" with additional words "Taste Maker" as his brand name and therefore, it is stated that when the respondent get the Trade Mark R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and rest of the areas in India are for the second units. Each unit has registered the Brand name Kesavardhini. In view of the case law cited by the Counsel for the Respondents we hold that each unit owns the brand name. Moreover, the condition in the Notification does not say if two different persons owned the same brand name both are not eligible for the exemption. The condition is to the effect ....