2017 (10) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed on Shri Nitin Gupta, partner of M/s. Shivam Plywood Company under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the main appellant M/s Shivam Plywood Company was manufacturing flush doors under the brand name of 'Door King' and were availing benefit of notification No.8/2003 (SSI exemption). The demand has been confirmed essentially on the ground that they were using the brand name of others and still not paying the duty on the goods. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeals. 3. With this background, we have heard Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned Advocate for the appellant and Shri H C Saini, learned DR for the respondent. We have gone through the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s" and trade mark mentioned in the said agreement would remain vested in all the parties including the appellant and the appellant was also allowed to use the same. The agreement further provides that the user of this trade mark, therefore, shall not make any payment of royalty or remuneration to any other party. This very fact was correctly appreciated by the Commissioner who decided the appeal in favour of the appellant. The discussion in the order of the Commissioner, 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 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the brand name within their marketing area. It is not the case of the Revenue that the appellant is marketing his products outside his marketing area. 24. I find that the appellant is the legal owner of the trade Marks used in his product in his own marketing area, the Trade Mark certificates produced before me clearly establish that the appellant had been having the right of ownership over the Brand names in the year 1962 itself when he became the 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 name....