2009 (2) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h belongs to another unit M/s. Leo Road Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and as such they are disentitled to the benefit of the Small Scale Industries Exemption notification. The appellant under the name of M/s. Leo Engineering is a proprietor concern of Shri Sunil Y. Bhivalkar, whereas M/s. Leo Road Equipments Pvt. Ltd. is a company with Shri Sunil Y. Bhivalkar being the Managing Director. Both the units are engaged in the manufacture of road construction equipment and asphalt plants. 2. During the course of search conducted and investigations made, it was found that appellant was using a nameplate bearing the name of "Leo". The Revenue entertained a view that since the said name was also used by other manufacturer, the use of the same by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Equipments Pvt. Ltd. is not being used by them and hence it cannot be said that the nameplate showing "Leo" is the brand name of the other company. The Revenue has not produced any evidence to establish that the said name "Leo" belonged to M/s. Leo Road Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Neither is there any claim by M/s. Leo Road Equipments Pvt. Ltd. that the brand name belonged to them. In such situation, the denial of benefit to them is not justified. 6.We agree with the ld. Advocate that condition No. 4 of the Notification No. 8/2000-CE dt. 1-3-2000 provides that the benefit of exemption is not available on specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another person. As such, the brand name being used by the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that in that case the other person had filed an application for registration of brand name and the Tribunal observed that mere filing of such a application does not make him the owner of the brand name. In the present case, there is virtually no evidence on record to show that the brand name belonged to the other company. To the same effect was another decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. A.J. Bantex (P) Ltd. v. CCE, Bangalore [2008 (229) E.L.T. 582 (Tri.-Bang.) = 2008 (87) RLT 135 (CESTAT-Bang.)], it was held that "A.J. Bantex" being appellants own name, they have a right to use it and as the Revenue has not produced any evidence that brand name belongs to another person, benefit of notification cannot be denied to the assessee. It....