2018 (2) TMI 1554

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....these are taken together for decision. Appeal No. E/1949/2008 is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 191-CE/APPL/KNP/2008 dated 30/04/2008 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Kanpur. Appeal No. E/992/2010 is arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 356-CE/APPL/KNP/2009 dated 15/12/2009 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Kanpur. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Water Storage Tank & Waste/Dustbins falling under Chapter 39 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and were claiming exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01/03/2003. On 05/09/2006, the Central Excise Officers, Agra visited the manufacturing fact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....23/05/2005 and that the deed of assignment was entered into on 01/04/2004 for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- and both the brand names were assigned by M/s Atul Pumps Pvt. Ltd. to appellant. It was further submitted that the said Certificate dated 16/06/2006 certified that Trade Mark No. 1123144 dated 03/07/2002 has been registered in the name of M/s Atul Pumps Pvt. Ltd. likewise said Certificate dated 23/05/2005 certified that Trade Mark No. 1123143 dated 31/07/2002 has been registered in the name of M/s Atul Pumps Pvt. Ltd. The Original Authority did not appreciate the arguments and held that the said deed of assignment dated 01/04/2004 was not acceptable and he ordered for confiscation of the said goods and imposed penalty of Rs. 1,02,694....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cash. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa Versus Primella Sanitary Products reported at 2005 (184) E.L.T. 125 (S.C.) as held as follows:- "2. The short question for consideration is whether the Respondent was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1st March, 1986 and Notification No. 1/93, dated 28th February, 1993. The only ground on which the adjudicating authority had denied the benefit of the Notifications was that the Respondent was using on their products the words Comfit Always which was a registered trademark of one M/s. Christine Hodein (I) Pvt. Ltd. The adjudicating authority held that the Assignment dated 28th June, 1987, for a considerati....