2000 (8) TMI 140

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as defined in explanation VIII of notification 175/86 (December 1988 to 31st March, 1990) and paragraph IX of notification 1/93 (for the period 1st April to 22nd June 1993). He has concluded that this brand name belongs to M/s. Dhawal Sales Corporation who, being a trader and not a manufacturer, was not entitled to the benefit of the notification and denied benefit of the notification by virtue of paragraph 7 of notification 175/86 and paragraph 4 of notification 1/93, and demanded duty on such trailers manufactured and cleared by the 7 appellants. He has imposed penalty on each of these appellants as also on M/s. Dhawal Sales Corporation. 2. It is not disputed that the trailers which were manufactured by these seven appellants bear the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n would not result in denial of the benefit of exemption to the goods. It is the appellant's contention that the brand name belonged not to Dhawal Sales Corporation but to M/s. Veena Engineering Works, which was entitled to the grant of exemption. The basis for this contention is that Dhawal Sales Corporation came into existence only in 14th February, 1981. It commenced to function as a proprietary concern of Veena S. Dhawale. Veena Engineering Works was constituted as a partnership of Veena S. Dhawale and others from first September, 1980 and continued till it was dissolved in November, 1992. Between the inception of the partnership and the coming into existence of a proprietary firm, Veena Engineering Works manufactured trailers bearing t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Corporation and not to Veena Engineering Works. 5. From the facts as narrated above, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that there was an arrangement between the manufacturers and Dhawal Sales Corporation whereby the trailers bearing the name in question were sold by each of them only to Dhawal Sales Corporation which in turn marketed them, issuing invoices bearing the name. However, this arrangement in our view by no mean establishes that the name at the relevant time belongs to Dhawal Sales Corporation. We have to make a distinction between the permission to use a brand name of one person by another person and the transfer or assignment of such a brand name. There is no evidence to show that there was no such transfer (assuming ....