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

2004 Supreme(SC) 214

Commissioner Of Central Excise, Trichy – Appellant
Versus
Rukmani Pakkwell Traders – Respondent


( 1 ) THESE appeals are against the judgment of the Customs, excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) dated 26th february, 1998. Briefly stated the facts are as follows : the respondents are traders in scented supari. They purchase scented supari in bulk from M/s. ARR Nutcon Products. Earlier they used to purchase from m/s. ARR Enterprise. The scented supari is marketed under the brand "arr" with a photograph of Shri AR Ramaswamy, the founder of ARR group of companies. The. respondents claimed benefit of Notification No. 1/93 CE dated 28-2-1993. The said Notification granted exemption, amongst others, to scented supari. However, CI. 4 of the Notification provides that the exemption contained in the Notification shall not apply to specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person. Explanation IX to this Notification reads as follows : "explanation IX : "brand name" or "trade name" shall means brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say a name or a mark, code number, design number, drawing number, symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods f











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