TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rises (respondent in appeal No. E/3474/2006). Appeal No. E/3509/2006 has been filed by the main appellant M/s Parag Enterprises against OIO No. 19/Commissioner/MP/2006 dated 31/7/06 under which Adjudicating Authority has confirmed a demand of Rs. 30,40,894/-, alongwith interest, and also imposed equivalent penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 readwith Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002, Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2001 and Rule 173Q of the Erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944. Penalties of Rs. 1 lakh each have been imposed upon Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta, Authorised Signatory of the main appellant and Shri Rajesh Sisodia, Ex-Authorised Signatory of the main appellant, for which appeals No. E/3510/2006 and E/3511/20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icated by Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Kanpur under OIO No. 19/Commr/MP/2006 dated 31/7/2006 which is appealed against by the appellants. It is the case of the learned Advocate that on an application (registered as Trade Mark No. 695047 dated 19/1/1996), Trade Marks Registry, Government of India, Mumbai has registered trade mark TEGU in the name of Parag Enterprises, Agra. That as the application was made in 1996, therefore, his clients were legally owning the brand name TEGU right from 1996. It was thus Advocates case that exemption was rightly available to his clients. Learned Advocate also relied upon the following case laws to argue that certificate dated 23/12/2005 will be effective from 19/1/1996 and on the same issue app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01/3/2003. That Larger Bench of CESTAT in the case of M/s Namtech Systems Ltd. vs. CCE, New Delhi [2005 (115) E.L.T. 238 (Tribunal)] has held that Small Scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 01/3/1986 is not eligible if a manufacturer affixes a brand name of a foreign person on the manufactured goods. Learned AR also relied upon the case law of CCE, Trichy vs. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders [2004 (165) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.)] in support of his arguments. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in these proceedings is whether brand name TEGU, registered in the name of the appellant in India, is not sufficient to claim exemption of Notification No. 8/2003-CE da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these diaphragm couplings (flexible) manufactured indigenously and cleared by the assessee, so much so that the said company `VULCAN has been got registered by M/s. ESBI Transmissions Pvt. Ltd., 8, Camac Street, Calcutta-700017, under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of 1958) and the use of the name `VULCAN/VULCAN-type couplings, by virtue of an assignment and thus, the exclusive right to manufacture, sell offer for sale, supply and/or distribution of VULCAN/VULCAN-type couplings and spares by any other firm in India other than the assessee, is illegal. In this connection it is stated that `M/s. VULCAN COUPLINGS are established designers and manufacturers in Germany for `VULCAN COUPLINGS and selling the same all over the World e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on under this notification. 11. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that the said foreign company has not objected to the use of their Trade name mark `Vulcan which has been registered by M/s. ESBI Transmissions Pvt. Ltd., 9, Camac Street, Calcutta-17 under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (43 of 1958). The use of the name `VULCAN/VULCAN-type couplings and spares by any other firm in India other than the assessee has become illegal. In this connection it is stated that M/s. Vulcan Couplings are established designers and manufacturers in Germany for `Vulcan Couplings and are selling the same all over the World, especially in the Marine applications field. Now Para 7 of the Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner must be upheld. 14. The petitioner is the owner of the registered trade mark Vulcan. By virtue of the provisions of Section 28 of the Trade & Merchandise Act the petitioner has acquired an exclusive right to the use of the trade mark in relation to the goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered. The petitioner is entitled to obtain relief against any person in respect of infringement of the trade mark in the manner provided by the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act. Therefore, no other person apart from the petitioner is entitled to use this trade mark. There is no question of there being any other person having any right to the trade mark in respect of these products. In view of this position in law it is not open to the respo....