TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (11) TMI 1418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to the appellant for affixing a brand name 'AVON'. In the proceedings before the lower authorities, it has been held that the brand name 'AVON' belongs to appellant M/s Wel-Tech Electronics, Jamnagar and accordingly, the benefit of Notification No.1/93-CE, dt.28.08.1993 is not admissible. The first appellate authority, inter-alia, has relied upon the judgment of the Mumbai CESTAT in the case of Cycle Motors Ltd. Vs CCE Pune - 2006 (196) ELT 319 (Tri-Mum), while remanding the appellant's appeal . 2. Shri S.J. Vyas (Advocate), appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that brand name 'AVON' is being used by the partnership firm of the appellant and their case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntitled to small scale exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE, dt.28.02.1993. 5. Heard both sides at length and perused the case records. 6. The first appellate authority has relied upon the judgment of Mumbai CESTAT in the case of Cycle Motors Ltd (supra). It is seen from the text of the judgment in the case of Cycle Motors Ltd (supra) that Mumbai CESTAT only made certain observations and remanded the case back for de-novo consideration and never passed a final verdict on the issue. On the other hand, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Minimax Industries (supra) held that all the partnership firms run by the family members are entitled to exemption when they are using its brand name. In Para 14 and 15 of the judgment, follow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llant on the judgment of Delhi CESTAT in the case of Elex Knitting Machinery Co. (supra) and in Para 6 & 7 of this judgment, following interpretation was made. 6. Apart from this, even otherwise legally it cannot be concluded that the appellants were using the brand name of another person. The brand name ELEX, according to the Department belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works. But Shri Pritam Singh who is the proprietor of the appellants firm, is one of the partners in that firm. Being co-owner of the brand name in the above said firm, he could not be said to had used the brand name of another person, in the manufacture and clearance of the goods in his individual capacity. He cannot be legally said to be running another firm of M/s.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th whom that trade name is to be identified can be established, the requirement of brand name or trade name as provided for in the said notification will not be satisfied. It is an admitted case of the department that in respect of locks, the units are making locks bearing the same name or mark even though there is no person who claims ownership to that mark or name. The names being used in the manufacture of locks by these small scale units do not belong to any particular manufacturer and any unit is free to use any name. Therefore, in our view, even without the issue of Notification of 4th/11th May, 1994 units which are using trade name or brand name, which does not belong to any person, were eligible for exemption under the said notifica....