2006 (9) TMI 423

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - This appeal filed by the assessee is against an order passed by learned Commissioner (Appeals) denying certain input duty credits to the appellants. There is no representation for the appellants today despite notice, nor any request of theirs for adjournment. The respondent is represented by learned SDR. In the circumstances....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....utilised the above input duty credit. This was objected to by the department, who took the stand that the so-called 'logo' used by the appellants was not a 'brandname' or 'trademark' but only  a 'house mark' and, therefore, the goods cleared under such 'house mark' did not qualify to be classified under SH 3303.10 attracting duty. In other words, the department was of the view that the finish....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e facts of the case from those of Astra Pharmaceuticals (supra). In the case considered by the Apex Court, a clear distinction was brought out between a 'trademark' and a 'house mark'. A trademark/brandname was held to be one establishing a connection, in the course of trade, between the product and the brandname-owner, whereas a 'house mark' was considered to be one which was intended to project ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wing the Apex Court's judgment. In the instant case, the mark ('logo' in the language of the appellants) which was affixed on the finished goods in question was "ALFRED BERG". Obviously, this mark was only intended to project the image of M/s. Alfred Berg & Co. (I) Pvt. Ltd. in the market and hence should clearly be identifiable as a 'house mark' of the company as rightly held by the lower appella....