TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (5) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... pipes, pipe fittings and Manhole covers and avail of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-93; that the brand name "Varuna" used by them on their goods belong to them; that the Brand Name "Varuna" was originally owned by M/s. Varuna Engg. Co.; that the appellants entered into an agreement with M/s. Varuna Engg. Co. on 2-9-86 under which they granted the right of sole use of brand name to the Appellants on payment of royalty of Rs. 25,000/- per annum; that thereafter by a Deed of Assignment dated 10-9-86, Varuna Engg. Co. assigned the brand name "Varuna" in respect of C.I. Pipes and fittings as well as manhole covers to the Appellants; that after assignment, Varuna Engg. Co. also stopped manufacturing the impugned good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rger Bench in the case of Sri Chakra Tyres Ltd. v. CCE, 1999 (108) E.L.T. 361. He finally contended that all the three adjudicating authorities - Joint Commissioner, Additional Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner - had vacated the show cause notice; that however, the Commissioner under Section 35E of the Central Excise Act, directed the Deputy Commissioner only to file appeal which is not legal; that thus application filed by Deputy Commissioner was not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions : (a) Dhampur Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE, 1999 (108) E.L.T. 498, (b) Supreme Industries Ltd. v. CCE, 1999 (114) E.L.T. 1003. 4. Countering the arguments, Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR, submitted that admittedly the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liwal Electricals (P) Ltd., 1996 (83) E.L.T. 241 (S.C.) wherein the Supreme Court has held that if the SSI manufacturer "joins, or identifies himself with the ineligible manufacturer, his goods become one with the goods of such ineligible manufacturer. They become indistinguishable. In the market, they will all be understood as one and the same goods. They no longer need the benefit of exemption,........once he becomes one with his competitors." He also referred to the judgment in British Airways PLC v. UOI, 2002 (139) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.) wherein it has been held that it is the duty of Court to make such construction of a statute which shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. While interpreting a statute the Courts are required to ke....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the brand name has been registered in their name with effect from 10-9-98 by the Trade Mark Authorities and M/s. Varuna Engg. Co. had stopped manufacturing impugned items. The Revenue on the other hand, has contended that no Deed of Assignment was executed on 10-9-86 as the same was neither mentioned by the Partners of both Varuna Engg. Co. and the Appellants in their statements recorded on 10-5-96 when Central Excise Officers visited their factory premises nor was it mentioned in their first reply dated 3-7-96 to show cause notice dated 4-6-96. 6. We find substance in the submissions made by the Revenue that the Deed of Assignment has been brought on record to defeat the case of the Revenue. When the Central Excise Officers visited the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oyed in Agreement dated 2-9-86 regarding the Appellants having "the exclusive right to the use of the aforesaid trade mark...." It is only in subsequent reply, for example reply dated 21-7-99, that the Appellants started mentioning that the trade mark was assigned in their favour in terms of assignment Deed dated 10-9-86. It is thus apparent that the Deed of Assignment was not in existence at the time the Central Excise Officers visited the factory premises of both Varuna Engg. Co. and the Appellants. This gets strengthened from the fact that the Appellants applied for registration of brand name only on 18-6-98. Thus brand name "Varuna" remained registered in the name of M/s. Varuna Engg. Co. for cast iron of all kinds and fittings therefor....