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

K.K.USHA, C.N.B.NAIR
Rathi Transpower (P. ) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.S. Lodha, S. Narayanan, A.R. Prabhune,P.K. Jain

ORDER

Per C.N.B. Nair : The issue raised in this appeal is the eligibility of the appellants for small scale exemption under Notification Nos. 175/86 and 1/93 in view of the use of the trade name/brand name "Lovejoy" on their products. It is not in dispute that manufacturers affixing the brand name of another person on their products are excluded from the benefit of small scale exemption under these notifications. The impugned order denying the small scale exemption has been passed on the basis that the brand name "Lovejoy" belonged to M/s. Lovejoy Inc. USA.

2. The appellants have submitted that the finding reached in the impugned order is not maintainable in the facts of the case. Further, it is erroneous in law. The submission of the appellant is that the brand name Lovejoy belonged to the appellants themselves and it had been registered in their favour as early as 1976 under Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958. During the hearing of the case our attention was specifically drawn in this connection to certificate of registration of Trade Mark No. 3210138 dated 10.12.76 issued in favour of the appellants. The appellants have pointed out that the registration by the appropriate autho

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