TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 943
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....K/09/2010 dated 15^th January 2010 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik, that confirmed the recovery of duty and penalty ordered by the original authority, and M/s Quality Business Machines challenges order-in-appeal no. NSK/APL/AKD/246/2006 dated 20^th October 2006 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nashik allowing the appeals of Revenue against the dropping of demand by the lower authority. 2. The demands had been issued for recovery of duty that was not paid on the ground of being eligible for exemption from duty as small scale units. Both appellants manufacture coin telephone boxes and it is alleged that the products manufactured by them bear the mark 'MULTIPLEX' under which M/s Multivision Electronics Pvt Lt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore [2011 (267) ELT 203 (Tri-Bang)], Commissioner of Central Excise, Jalandhar v. Akal Agricultural Industries [2015 (321) ELT 541 (Tri-Del)], Electron Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2014 (307) ELT 746 (Tri-Mumbai)] and Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders [2004 (165) ELT 481 (SC)] were cited. 5. We are unsure of the manner in which these decisions advance the cause of Revenue. In re Vetcare Organics P Ltd the brand was registered and in re Nucon Industries Pvt Ltd, the goods bore the mark that, admittedly, identified them with the buyer. In re Sunfab, the Tribunal relied upon acknowledgement of authorised persons that the use of the logo w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me of another person to whom it belongs to, lies on the Revenue and is required to be proved before the benefit of small-scale exemption notification could be denied. In the instant proceedings, the Revenue has not established the owners of the brand name in question. As such, the definition of brand name as appearing in the small-scale exemption notification that such brand name or trade name must indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and person using such names or marks, does not get satisfied in as much there is no such person using such names so as to indicate a connection in the trade. We, further, note that it is recognized even by the Board that some of the brands floating in the marks did not belo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in dispute that while the logo 'Minimax' was being used by the partnership firm during the period from 1996 till 2000, it was also being used in relation to the similar product manufactured by M/s. Minimax Engineering Industries. It is also a matter of record that M/s. Minimax Engineering Industries is a proprietory concern of Mohd. Yamin who was also partner of M/s. Minimax Industries during the period from 1996 till 31-5-99. There is nothing on record to disclose that the proprietor of M/s. Minimax Engineering Industries who was also the partner of M/s. Minimax Industries had any time objected for use of logo 'Minimax' by M/s. Minimax Industries on the ground that it was a trade name or brand name of M/s. Minimax Engineering Industries.....