TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (2) TMI 222
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he authorities below. The contentions raised by the appellant before the authorities were that the said brand name was previously owned by Bullworker Pvt. Ltd. and by deed of assignment dated 24-6-99 said brand name was assigned and transferred to the appellants. The department contended that the appellants had manufactured the goods in the brand name of another, and that appellants being a partnership concern, they were not entitled to claim the benefit of the said notification, as the usage of the brand name "Bullworker" the trade mark of which is owned by another person infringed the Paragraph No. 4 of the said notification. The departmental authorities claimed a differential duty of Rs. 3,11,021/- in Appeal No. E/3364/2000 and confirmed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e appellant. It is an admitted fact that the trade mark Bullworker was registered in the name of erstwhile owner. While the assignment deed dated 24-6-99, the erstwhile owner who happens to be the assignor have agreed to assign and transfer to the assesses before us, the trade mark "Bullworker" and have also agreed to do all acts necessary to register the same in favour of and in the name of the assignees the appellant before us with the Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai. By the said assignment, it was also agreed to by the assignor to hand over to the assignee the formula for manufacturing the said product known as Bullworker and have agreed not to directly or indirectly manufacture sale or distribute the product themselves or through their....