text
stringlengths
5
5.67k
Therefore,the factual scenario in the instant case leads to an inescapable conclusion that notwithstanding the expiry of the period fixed in the time charter party dated 6th May,1997,the said charter party did not get extinguished,inter alia,for the purpose of determination of the disputes arising thereunder and the ar...
In view of the foregoing discussion,we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the High Court that Charter Party dated 6th May,1997 had not come to an end by efflux of time and it got extended by the conduct of the parties,warranting interference RPC
Having come to the conclusion that an arbitration agreement existed between the parties,the question which remains to be considered is whether the disputes between the parties should be referred to the same Arbitral Tribunal which had come to the conclusion that in the absence of any arbitration agreement it did not ha...
We feel that it would be proper and expedient to constitute a fresh Arbitral Tribunal RPC
Accordingly,we constitute an Arbitral Tribunal consisting of Justice M.Jagannadha Rao (Presiding Arbitrator),Justice D.P.Wadhwa and Justice S.N.Variava,former Judges of this Court to adjudicate upon the claim/counter claim by the parties,subject to their consent and such terms and conditions as they may deem fit and pr...
It goes without saying that the learned Tribunal shall deal with the matter uninfluenced by any observations in this order on the respective stands of the parties RPC
Resultantly,the appeal being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed,which we do,leaving the parties to bear their own costs Ratio
The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the learned Members of the Arbitral Tribunal to enable them to enter upon the Reference and decide the matter as expeditiously as practicable RPC
Appeal dismissed RPC
Aggrieved by the decision of Customs,Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) dated 11.4.2000,the appellants (assessee) have come by way of civil appeals under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act,1944 FAC
Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of biscuits classifiable under Sub-Heading 1905.11 of the Central Excise Tariff FAC
The biscuits were sold under the brand name "Meghraj".Under show cause notices it was alleged that the appellants herein (assessee) have sold the biscuits under the brand name "Meghraj",which was a registered trade mark of Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.who was using the said trade mark on manufacture of biscuits themselves,...
The above show cause notices were issued by the Department demanding differential duty for the period April 1994 to June 1994 amounting to Rs.3,74,948/-plus short paid duty for the period April 1995 to May 1995 amounting to Rs.92,992.The said demand was based on an agreement detected by the Department FAC
That Agreement was between Madan Verma,Director of a company known as M/s FAC
Kay Aar Biscuits (P Ratio
Ltd.,Ghaziabad,and M/s FAC
Rich Food Products (P) Ltd.,Noida FAC
Under the said Agreement M/s FAC
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.was FAC
Party No.1.Under the Agreement FAC
it was declared that M/s FAC
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.was the owner of the registered trade mark "Meghraj".Under the Agreement FAC
it was stated that M/s FAC
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.was using the aforestated trade mark "Meghraj" for the manufacture of biscuits FAC
Under the Agreement there was a recital under which it was stated that M/s FAC
Rich Food Products (P ARG
Ltd.had put up a Unit for manufacture of wafers in Noida which it sought to manufacture under the brand name "Meghraj".Under FAC
the said Agreement M/s FAC
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.gave permission to M/s FAC
Rich Food Products Pvt FAC
Ltd.to use its trade mark for the manufacture of wafers alone FAC
The said agreement was valid for three years commencing from 22.11.1989 FAC
At this stage,it may be noted that the appellants herein claim to have started manufacture of biscuits in 1991.The biscuits were sold in wrapper mentioning the name of the appellants,"M/s ARG
Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd." or "Meghraj".The Appellants claimed that it has been using the wrapper since beginning and since 1991 the use of the trade name or brand name "Meghraj" has never been challenged ARG
The Assistant Commissioner,Ghaziabad,examined the printed wrappers FAC
He came to the conclusion vide his orders that the trade name "Meghraj" was in the form of a logo printed on the wrapper of the biscuits and,therefore,the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.2.93 as amended by Notification No.59/94 dated 1.3.94.Consequently,the Adjudicating A...
Aggrieved by the decision of the Adjudicating Authority,the assessee preferred appeals to the Commissioner (A).The said appeals were rejected on the ground that the appellants were using the brand name "Meghraj" of another manufacturer M/s FAC
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.on their products (biscuits) and,therefore,they were not entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE,as amended FAC
It was held that the word "Meghraj" was printed on all the printed wrappers and,therefore,it was wrong to say that the appellants were not using the brand name "Meghraj" on its products FAC
In this connection,reliance was placed by the Commissioner (A) on the said Agreement dated 22.11.89.Before the Commissioner (A) the appellants herein contended that they had used the name "M/s FAC
Meghraj Biscuits Industries Ltd." on the wrapper and not on the product FAC
and,therefore,they were entitled to exemption FAC
This argument was rejected by the Commissioner (A) saying that the appellants were using the brand name "Meghraj" on their products FAC
According to the Commissioner (A),the appellants used the trade name "Meghraj" in the form of a logo which was printed on the wrapper FAC
Before the Commissioner (A),it was argued in the alternative that the logo belonged to M/s ARG
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd Ratio
that the same was registered SSI Unit; that M/s ARG
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.was lying closed since 1.3.93 and,therefore,the appellants have been using that logo of M/s ARG
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.who was eligible for exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE,as amended ARG
This contention was rejected by the Commissioner (A) on the ground that under the Notification No.1/93-CE,as amended,exemption was not available to the specified goods bearing brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person FAC
Since,the appellants herein had used the trade name "Meghraj" on their products which trade name was owned by M/s FAC
Ltd.the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of exemption under Notification No.1/93-CE,as amended FAC
Accordingly,the Commissioner (A) dismissed the appeals FAC
The orders of the Commissioner (A) have been confirmed by Order dated 11.4.2000 passed by CEGAT FAC
Hence,these civil appeals FAC
To complete the chronology of events,it may be pointed out that after the impugned decision of the Tribunal dated 11.4.2000,the appellants herein moved an Application for Rectification on 12.5.2000 (ROM No.72/2000).In that application it was urged on behalf of the appellants herein that the said brand name "Meghraj" di...
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.; that the Department has failed to discharge its burden to prove that the trade name "Meghraj" belonged to M/s FAC
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.; that a mere Agreement between M/s FAC
Ltd.and M/s Ratio
Rich Food Products (P) Ltd.would not be sufficient to prove that M/s FAC
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.was the lawful owner of the brand name FAC
Meghraj".In the Rectification Application FAC
it was further pointed out that in fact the appellants had applied for ownership of the brand name "Meghraj" vide application dated 30.9.91 to the Registrar,Trade Marks under the Trade Marks Act and that the said application for registration was pending before the competent authority and since the above arguments were ...
By Order dated 8.12.2000,CEGAT rejected the above Rectification Application made by the Appellants FAC
One more fact needs to be mentioned that on 30.6.2000 the Registrar of Trade Marks appears to have issued Registration Certificate on 30.6.2000 registering the trade mark "Meghraj" in favour of the appellants with effect form 30.9.91.It appears that issuance of this certificate was mentioned before the CEGAT which reje...
Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.2.93 was issued to help the SSI Units to survive in the market dominated by brand name/trade name Ratio
The object of the Notification,therefore,was to help the SSI Units and thereby increased industrial production Ratio
Under para '4' of the said Notification,the benefit of exemption was not available for excisable goods bearing brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person Ratio
Explanation IX defined the word "brand name" or "trade name".The same is quoted hereinbelow Ratio
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,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 connectio...
Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 was subsequently amended by Notification No.59/94 dated 1.3.94.Para '7' of Notification No.1/93-CE as amended read as under: "Para-7 The exemption contained in this Notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand n...
In the present case,as stated above M/s Ratio
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd entered into an agreement on 22.11.89 with M/s Ratio
Rich Food Products (P) Ltd Ratio
Under that Agreement the Director of M/s Ratio
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.declared that his company was the owner of the registered trade mark "Meghraj".The name of that Director is Madan Verma Ratio
He is the Director of the appellants (company) also Ratio
Further there is no evidence to show as to whether M/s Ratio
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.was an "eligible manufacturer Ratio
This aspect is important since one of the arguments advanced by the appellants herein before the Commissioner (A) was that the trade mark belonged to M/s ARG
Ltd.,which was registered SSI Unit lying closed since 1.3.1993 ARG
No explanation has been given as to why Madan Verma has not been examined by the appellants Ratio
He has not been examined even on the question of alleged transfer of the trade mark in favour of the appellants Ratio
In the circumstances,we do not find any merit in this appeal Ratio
On behalf of the appellants it has been vehemently argued that M/s ARG
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.was never the registered owner of the trade mark "Meghraj".It was urged that merely because an Agreement stood entered into on 22.11.89 between M/s ARG
Ltd.,the Department had erred in alleging that the trade mark belonged to M/s ARG
It was urged that M/s ARG
Ltd.had never got the trade mark registered under the Trade Marks Act ARG
It was urged that a false declaration was made by M/s ARG
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.under the above Agreement on 22.11.89 ARG
It was urged that a mere agreement between two parties cannot constitute ownership of the trade mark in favour of M/s ARG
It was urged that in any event M/s ARG
Kay Aar Biscuits (P) Ltd.had stopped its production in 1993; that the company had become defunct; that the appellants herein had applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks for registration of the mark "Meghraj" and vide registration certificate dated 30.6.2000 the Registrar has recognized the appellants as owner of the tr...
We do not find any merit in the above arguments PRE
In the case of Pahwa Chemicals Pvt PRE
Ltd.v PRE
Commissioner of Central Excise,Delhi 2005 (189 PRE
ELT 257 2005 Indlaw SC 799(SC PRE
this Court has held that the object of the exemption Notification was neither to protect the owners of the trade mark nor the consumers from being misled PRE