SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 1211

RUMA PAL, ARUN KUMAR
Commissioner Of Central Excise, CHANDIGARH II – Appellant
Versus
BHALLA ENTERPRISES – Respondent


ORDER

1. These appeals raise a common question of law arising out of exemption Notification No.1 of 1993-CE by which exemption was granted under Section 5-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 with regard to certain goods up to a particular value. The particular paragraph of this notification the interpretation of which is in issue, is para 4 and Explanation IX to that paragraph. These read:

"The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods, bearing a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person.

Explanation IX.- Brand name or trade name shall mean a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say a name or a mark, [x x x] such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person."

2. The specified goods referred to in para 4 have been set out in the annexures to the notification. It is not in dispute that the industries which
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top