2018 (5) TMI 2046

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of 'testing equipment' and had been claiming the benefit of notification no. 1/1993-Central Excise dated 1st March 1993 and notification no. 16/1997 dated 1st April 1997, as amended, for the period between 1996-98. According to central excise authorities, the goods were being affixed with the logo/monogram 'PTM' which was allegedly owned by M/s Precision Testing Machines for whom the appellant had also undertaken manufacturing work. The clearances for the impugned period were clubbed and the consequent duty liability fastened on M/s Apex Enterprises along with other detriments leading to the present appeals. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Centr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the submission of the counsel for the appellant is well-founded that once the said credit is taken the beneficiary is at liberty to utilize the same, immediately thereafter, subject to the Credit rules.' 5. On the other hand, we find that the use of the brand name belonging to another entity was a matter of consideration in the decision of the Tribunal in Minimax Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi - I [2010 (261) ELT 535 (Tri.-Del.)] and it was held that '8. Plain reading of the definition of the terms "brand name" and "trade name" in the notification discloses that in "order to classify a logo to have acquired the brand name or trade name within the meaning of the said expression under the said notification, it must be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of Delhi, on appeal by Revenue, has held that the application of the principles pertaining to use of brand name by the Tribunal could not be faulted and observed that '15. Admittedly, MEI has not got the brand name/logo "Minimax" registered either under the Registration Act or under the Trade Mark Act or any other Act. It has also never claimed, at any time, its exclusive rights over the use of logo "Minimax" and never taken any action against the partnership firm. It is not a case of the department that the said MEI has allowed the partnership firm to use the said name. The Tribunal has also arrived at a finding of fact that "Minimax" has not acquired any such reputation that it can be associated with "MEI". 16. At this stage we would....