AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 599
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... another person. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in manufacture of components of kitchen furniture such as shutters, cabinets, shelves and other furniture. They started their operation and clearing their goods under specific logo "Sunshine" and claimed the benefit of "SSI" exemption under Notification No. 08/2023 Central Excise dated 01.03.2023 on its first clearance upto 1.50 lakhs during the financial year 2012-13 and paying duty after crossing the exemption limit on their clearances. Whereas, M/s Sunshine Kitchen Pvt Ltd (SKPL), a group company of the appellant is also engaged in trading of modular kitchen items. The products so purchased are sold by SKPL, under the logo "Sunshine" its registered trademark. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s not contravened para 4 thereof, as the case of the revenue revolves regarding the use of logo of SKPL by the appellant is factually incorrect, since the logo used by the appellant does not belong to SKPL. It is also submitted that the learned Adjudicating Authority has categorically noted the existence of two abovementioned different logos by giving a finding that as per the observations, I find that SKPL is using both trademarks and on their website out of which one is registered with their firm and another is not registered. Therefore, Adjudicating Authority itself has recognized two different Sunshine logos. Therefore, the stand taken by the revenue that appellant is using the brand name of another person is not sustainable. As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(158) ELT 602 (Tri. - Del.) 8. With regard to the logo "Touchwud", it is the contention of the appellant that the said logo does not belong to SKPL, as the application filed by M/s SKPL for registration on said trademark has been rejected by the Trademark Authority on 26.10.2018. It is further submitted that mere applying for trademark registration for Touchwood Logo cannot be acquired with ownership of uses of such logo by SKPL. Therefore, it cannot be said that Touchwood logo used by the appellant belongs to another person. To support this contention, he relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Garnier Solutions v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore, 2008 (232) ELT 311 (Tri.-Bang.) and also relied on the CBEC ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Raipur v. Hira Cement, 2006 (194) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) * Swastik Appliances v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai- III 2015 (330) E.L.T. 287 (Tri-Mumbai) * Cherran Plast v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Coimbatore- 2001 (131) E.L.T. 690 (Tri. Chennai) * Vijay Kumar Arora v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-I 2016 (335) E.L.T. 754 (Tri-Del) * Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I-v. Mahan Dairies 2004 (166) E.L.T. 23(SC) 11. Heard the parties considered submissions. 12. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows:- a) the logo "Touch wood" was used by the appellant as a manufacturer and the appellant has applied for registration with Trade Marks Registry. M/s SKPL has merely applied for registration of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent is using the brand name 'RIAT SONS' while the brand name 'RIAT' was owned by M/s. RIAT Machine Tools (M/s.RMT). Admittedly, both the brand names were registered with the trade mark authority and recognized as not similar. It is documented from the brand name registration certificate dated 24.9.2005 submitted by the respondent and from para 4 of the show cause notice that the brand name used by the respondent is 'RIAT SONS' and by M/s. RMT is 'RIAT and the two brand names were not similar and were distinct brand names. In that circumstance, it cannot be said that the respondent is using brand name of another person." 14. Further, in the case of Bhamber Engineers (Supra), this Tribunal observed as under: "Heard ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7. In that circumstance, relying on the decision in the case of Garnier Solutions (Supra), wherein this Tribunal observed as under: "On a very careful consideration of the matter. we find that there is no evidence brought on record by the Revenue to show that the brand name 'Garnier belongs to the second appellant. The fact that the second appellant had applied for registration cannot be a reason for denying SSI benefit to the first appellant on the ground that they had used brand name of the other. The Commissioner's (Appeals) observation that the fact of filing application for registration on 22-8-2005 by second appellant, M/s Garnier Seatings imply claim of ownership of the said brand, is not acceptable. If a unit applies for r....