TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (10) TMI 808
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... R.K. Verma, JDR, for the Respondent. ORDER Heard. 2. This appeal arises from order dated 29-10-2004 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Chandigarh whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed. 3. Few facts relevant for the decision are that the appellants are engaged in manufacture of telephones both ordinary and cordless. The appellants are duly registered as the small scale in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation, telephony etc. on 1-5-1992 and the said application was granted by the competent authority on 15-2-2000 in favour of the appellants in respect of cordless phone and basic phone. 4. A show cause notice dated 19-11-1993 came to be issued to the appellants alleging that the appellants had wrongly availed the benefit under Notification Nos. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 and 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on under Trade Marks Act, 1958 was granted on 15-2-2000 and, therefore, benefit thereunder could not be availed prior thereto, thereby ignoring the provisions of law comprised under section 23 of The Trade Marks Act. 1999. He submitted that Section 23 clearly provides that registration granted under the said act will take effect from the date of the application and in the case in hand the registra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1999 reads thus :- "(1) Subject to the provisions of Section 19, when an application for registration of a trade mark has been accepted and either- (a) the application has not been opposed and the time for notice of opposition has expired; or (b) the application has been opposed and the opposition has been decided in favour of the applicant, The Registrar shall, unless the Central Governm....