TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 694
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration under Rule 173B of Central Excise Rules, 1944 claiming benefit of Notification No.1/1993, dt.28.02.1993. It was found that the appellant company was also in possession of another unit in the name and style of M/s Que Pharma, having four partners in the said firm and engaged in manufacturing and clearing the same goods, availing benefit of exemption or concessional rate of duty as provided under Notification No.1/1993. It was also noticed that the said unit was using and affixing their brand name/trade name/logo namely Que on their medicament products manufactured and cleared during the financial year 1996-1997 valued at Rs.63,40,830/- during the period 01.04.1996 to 31.08.1996, availing benefit of Notification No.1/1993. They were is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d held that the brand name Que is being used by both the units and both the units are manufacturing same product and selling under the same brand name. Hence, this appeal. 4. Ld.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant draws our attention to the fact that there is no dispute as regards there being usage of brand name Que . It is his submission that prior to incorporation of the appellant as a private limited company, the appellant was functioning as a partnership firm and the said partnership firm had the brand Que registered in their name. He would also submit that said brand was assigned to private limited company (appellant herein) for manufacture of the final product as per schedule to the said assignment deed dt.30.08.1996. 5. It....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....horities want to deny the benefit of Notification No.1/1993-CE, to the current appellant on the ground that the said brand Que is not their brand and the said brand is of M/s Que Pharma, a partnership firm, which is having its own separate existence. 9. On perusal of the deed of assignment which is annexed to the appeal memoranda, we find that the said deed of assignment was in respect of approximately 50 items manufactured by M/s Que Pharma, a partnership firm and the brand name as such have been assigned to the current appellant. On perusal of the said assignment deed, we find that the said assignment deed specifically states as under:- Further to agreement entered into for the deed of assignment on payment of Rs.31,000/- made on 30.08.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case of Jepika Paints. 11. Before we proceed to consider the above question, we may briefly refer to the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the Revenue. Learned Counsel has urged that under the erstwhile Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 Section 2(a) defines assignment of trade mark to mean an assignment in writing by act of the parties concerned. Section 37 of the said Act lays down assignability and transmissibility of registered trade mark. 37. Assignability and transmissibility of registered trade marks.- Notwithstanding anything in any other law to the contrary, a registered trade mark shall, subject to the provisions of this Chapter, be assignable and transmissible, whether with or without the goodwill of the busines....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....transmission until the rights of the parties have been determined by a competent Court. (2) Except for the purpose of an application before the Registrar under sub-section (1) or an appeal from an order thereon, or an application under section 56 or an appeal from an order thereon, a document or instrument in respect of which no entry has been made in the register in accordance with sub-section (1), shall not be admitted in evidence by the Registrar or any Court in proof of title to the trade mark by assignment or transmission unless the Registrar or the Court, as the case may be, otherwise directs. 13. It is in the context of this requirement that the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants had referred to the decision in Collector of ....