2008 (10) TMI 441

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 Surinder Shah, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. -  Heard both sides on the stay petition. 2.1 The applicant is a proprietary concerned with Shri Anil Kumar Jain as proprietor; that he is also the Managing Director of M/s. A.K. Engineering Industries (I) Pvt. Ltd. with his wife as other director; and that he is director of Rolling In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....osed equal penalty on the applicant. 3. Learned Advocate submits that name 'rollin' is only a household name and same cannot be treated as a brand name. Even if it is treated as a brand name, the same is not registered one. It is useable not only by A.K. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. but by other group concerns also. He relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Cha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tered is not relevant for the purpose of considering exemption Notification No. 8/2000; the evidence indicates that the brand name is owned by Rolling Industries Pvt. Ltd. and the present applicant has used the brand name of the other company for clearing the goods manufactured by them and not eligible for exemption. 6. Learned Advocate alternatively submits that the demand is also substan....