2007 (8) TMI 208

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....3.2005 by which the benefit of SSI Notification has been denied on the ground that the assessee is utilizing the trade name "ESL's Titanic" owned by another individual. The appellants have denied that the brand name belongs to another person. They have in the reply to the show cause notice clearly informed the authorities that they have already acquired the trade name "ESL's Titanic" from the pre....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....anaging Director to show that it is a fabricated document, which was in existence. Therefore, the learned Counsel submits that so long as the Assignment Deed has been executed and the brand name has been acquired by them in their own right in terms of the 'Trade and Merchandise Act', then the appellant cannot be denied the benefit of the Notification. He relied on the ruling of the Apex Court rend....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lgaum vs. Abidel (I) - 2004 (172) ELT 95 (Tri.-Bang.) 3. The learned JDR on the other hand relied on the Apex Court judgment rendered in the case of CCE, Trichy Vs. Grasim Industries - 2005 (183) ELT 123 (SC) which has denied the benefit of SSI Notification on the use of brand name or trade name used by any other person. He refers to the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of AVA Engineering C....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xcise Officer visited the factory and the same had also not been relied in reply to the show cause notice. There was a doubt about its existence. The situation is clearly distinguishable in the present case. The appellant had relied on the Assignment Deed in the reply to the show cause notice including the Minutes of the Board meeting resolving to acquire the trade mark in the year 1999. The Origi....