2024 (10) TMI 216

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....out that the appellant are manufacturing the branded products of Ms. Price Care Pharma Pvt Ltd who has assigned their brand name to the appellant. The dispute relates to the eligible to Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. 2.1. The learned Counsel submits that brand name Price Care was assigned by Ms. Prince Care to the appellant vide agreement dated 25.04.2008 only for manufacture of glucose and also under deed of assignment of trade mark dated 20.05.2010. The impugned order observes that the said agreement and deed of assignment are made without any lawful consideration and are not registered and therefore, not valid documents. The impugned order considers the said documents as void under law. Consequently, the impugned order d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly, glucose powder are not to be subjected to Section 4A of the Central Excise Act. 2.8. He further argued that they have no penalty under proviso to Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 can be imposed as they have not suppressed any information and there was no intention to evade payment of duty. 3. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. The entire case is based on the determination of the rights to use brand name between the appellant and Prince Care Pharma Private Limited. The Commissioner in the impugned order has argued that the said agreement and deed of assignment has not been registered and then no consideration was paid for t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ated that it was permissible in law to have same brand name for different classes of goods owned by different-persons. Paragraph 3 of the said report reads as under 3. The contention put forth before the Tribunal as well as before us is that no document has been shown that the subsequent assignment in favour of M/s. Vikshara Trading & Invest. P. Ltd. was registered as contemplated under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. This aspect was taken note of by the Tribunal that the trade mark need not necessarily be in respect of all goods unless registration has been so acquired and it is therefore, permissible in law to have same brand name for different classes of goods owned by different person, and in that background....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ritorial limits set out in the deed of assignment. It is not in dispute that, within such territory, nobody else, nor even the brand name owner, had the right to use the brand name on identical or similar goods. The notifications referred to "brand name of another person" in the context of providing that the notifications shall not be applicable to goods cleared under a brand name or trade mark of another person. Similar provisions were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous cases including the case of Vikshara Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In the said case, the deed of assignment, wherein a trade mark was assigned to the assessee by its owner, was not registered and, on that basis, the SSI benefit under Notificat....