TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 432
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellants are manufacturers of Aerated Water and soft drinks under the brand name of "Kali Mark". They marketed various flavours in the name of "Kali Kola", "Bovonto", "Solo", "Frutang", "Captain", "Trio", "Club Soda" etc., and claiming SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 as amended. The adjudicating authority in all these cases denied the benefit of exemption notification on the ground that the brand name of "Kali Mark", "Bovanto and Frutang are the brand name of other persons and held that they are liable to pay central excise duty with interest under Section 11 A (1) and 11 AB of the CEA, 1944 and imposed penalty under Rule 25 of CER, 02, and rejected the appeals filed by all the appellants. Hence, the pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 30/11 dt.28.02.11 01.04.09 to 22.07.09 12,35,955 3,00,000 11 259/11 -do- 143/11 dt. 22.3.11 01.04.09 to 09.07.09 34,138 34,138 12 260/11 -do- 145/11 dt. 22.03.11 01.04.08 to 22.08.08 83,018 83,018 13 387/12 -do- 97/12 dt. 24.05.12 01.04.10 to 19.06.10 15,44,913 3,75,000 3. The Ld. Advocate Ms. Sridevi appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that their business was done as a family business under the HUF identity till the same was partitioned on 31.03.77 and pursuant to this partition w.e.f. 01.04.77 all the units located at different places started functioning with their own financial investments as an individual unit and managed by the descendents o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he OIAs with consequential relief. 4. The Ld. AC (AR) Shri Paneer Selvam, appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterated the findings of the OIA. He submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly denied the benefit of SSI exemption under the Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01.03.2003 as amended since they were using the brand name of other persons. He further submits that they have not included the value of the exempted goods into the aggregate value. Hence, the appellants are not eligible for SSI exemption under the said notification. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records, Tribunal's Order in the assessee's own case (supra) and the Honble Supreme Court order in the assessee's own....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty comes to know about any infringement and passing of use of any deceptively similar mark on any imitation by any person in the market, then the party in whose area the said imitation, infringement or passing off takes place shall take immediate legal steps against such erring persons at his cost, under the provisions of Trade and Merchandise Mark Act, 1958 or any other common law in which suitable an effective remedies are provided. (M) In any party falls to initiate legal action against such erring persons in order to protect the Trade Mark and Trade name, then any other party can take action against such defaulting parties as well as against the person committing such infringement, passing off or imitation for suitable remedy.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner, on this aspect, reads as under : "23. During the personal hearing Shri Rathina Asohan drew my attention to the certificates issued by the Trade Mark Registry from the year 1948 to 1985 which were filed before the lower authority. I find the appellant's name also figures in the certificates issued in the year 1962 and 1970 when he became one of the partner of the erstwhile HUF Firm. The appellant have been marketing his products only within his own marketing area. It is not the case of the Revenue that any other person is using the same Brand names in the same area. Similarly the appellant is not selling his goods outside his marketing area. So far his business is concerned the appellant appears to be the only legal owner of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... coparcener in the HUF firm. The appellant has had his exclusive ownership rights even prior to the said impugned notification. Hence the subsequent notification cannot take away the ownership right of the appellant over the brand names "KaliMark" "Bovonto" and "Frutang" and other brand names and applying the same to the specified goods manufactured by the appellant and marketing the same within his own marketing area in exclusion of others. On perusing the trade mark certificates, Decree of the Civil Court, Mutual Agreement dated 12-3-1993 and also considering the above contentions, I find that the appellant is the legal owner of the brand names within his marketing area." 5. It is thus manifest that the appellant has been using i....