TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (4) TMI 3
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the adjudicating authority, and consequently the assessee has been held to be entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 140/83-C.E. Tribunal has dismissed Appeal No. E/254-R/2000 filed by the Revenue. 2.The assessee is engaged in the manufacture of 'Bigen Liquid Hair Colour' falling under Chapter 33 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (for short 'the Tariff Act'). The assessee had claimed SSI exemption under Notification No. 140/83-C.E. The product was manufactured and cleared under the brand name "BIGEN" which was owned by M/s. Hoyu Kabushiki Kaisha, a Japanese firm, carrying on business at Nagoya, Japan. By a Deed of Assignment dated 22nd September, 1988, the assessee was ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g details of the correspondence between M/s. Hoyu Co. Ltd., Japan and the assessee was recovered. On the basis of the said evidence, assessee was served with a show cause notice dated 28-10-1993 on the similar lines as had been issued on 19th January, 1990 which was the subject matter of the decision of the Tribunal between the same parties in Bigen Industries (supra). 5.Show cause notice dated 28th of October, 1993 required, inter alia, to respond as to why the exemption under Notification No. 140/83-C.E. be not denied to the assessee. In paragraph 19 of the said show cause notice, the authority accepted the existence of the Deed of Assignment but denied the exemption on the ground that Clause 6 of the Notification in question did not ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order has held that the Trade Mark Registry, which is the statutory authority, recognises the assessee as the sole proprietor of the trade mark "Bigen" for the territory of India. Since the trade mark Bigen is registered in the name of the assessee, it cannot be denied the benefit of the notification under consideration. This apart, Tribunal observed that the decision in the assessee's own case in the earlier proceedings which has become final, clinches the issue in favour of the assessee. 9.Counsel for the parties have been heard. 10.The adjudicating authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have proceeded on the basis as if the order passed by the Trade Mark Registry registering the trade mark in favour of the assessee is errone....