TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 727
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tings manufactured and cleared by them under the "Brand Name" "()Gprecision()" (herein after refer to as "Brand Name") claiming benefit of Small Scale exemption Notification No. 8/2000-CE from time to time. Lower authorities were of the view that the exemption claimed by the appellant for the period 2000-01 to 31st July, 2004 is wrong in as much as the "Brand Name" was alleged to be the same as it was registered in the name of one M/s Navin Bharat Industries Pvt. Ltd., which incidently is a group company of M/s Choudhary International Group of which appellant is also a Group Company. The said M/s Navin Bharat Industries Pvt. Ltd. was using similar "Brand Name" for 'Electrical Conduit Pipes, Switches etc' and which was registered....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said brand name "()Gprecision()" in the manner and style used by them belongs to them and not to any other person; 2. That the Appellants had applied for registration of the said brand name "()Gprecision()"with Trade Marks Registry on 2.12.1997 and registration was granted to them on 13.05.2008, effective 02.12.1997. Therefore, the goods manufactured by them were/are not bearing brand name of any other person to attract the mischief of Para 4 of Notn.No.8/2003-CE; 3. That thestyle of brand name "(Gprecision)" owned, used and registered in the name of M/s.Navin Bharat Industries/M/s.Choudhary International is different from thestyle of brand name "()Gprecision()" owned, used and registered in the Appellants. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of duty, the penalty imposed is not sustainable; 9. That, in any case, penalty is not sustainable when issue relates to interpretation of law, based on the settled position of law on the issue;" 4. Learned Counsel would draw our attention to the application made by them under Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and submitted an application was made for the Brand on 2nd December, 1997, which was approved as registered trade mark of the appellant by the order of the Registrar of Trade Mark dated 13.05.2008 but effective from 2nd December, 1997. He would also draw our attention to the certificate of registration of Trade Mark of Brand issued in the name of M/s Navin Bharat Industries Pvt. Ltd. and submit that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the one allotted to one M/s Navin Bharat Industries Pvt. Ltd., hence the benefit of SSI is not available. 8. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of records, we find that the adjudicating authority has come to a conclusion that appellant is not eligible for a benefit of SSI notification as the "Brand Name" is not registered in the appellants name. 9. On perusal of the Certificate of Registration of Trade Mark as issued by the Registrar of Trade Mark in the case of appellant's Brand, we notice that it is registered in the name of the appellant with reference to their application for registration of the Trade Mark dated 2nd December, 1997. The same is reproduce ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of the "Brand Name" in this case as reproduced herein is in the name of appellant. Accordingly when the "Brand Name" is in the name of appellant benefit of SSI exemption in accordance with law needs to be extended to appellant. Since, we are disposing of appeal on merits itself, we not recording any findings on various others submission made by both sides. 11. The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Operative portion of the order pronounced in open Court) ============= Document 1 FORM 0-2 GOVERNMENT OF INDHA TRADE MARKS REGISTRY Trade Marks Act, 1999 No. 726538 Certificate of Registration of Trade Mark, Section 23 (2), Rule 62 (1) ....