Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(1) Shri R. Doraiswamy, Proprietor of M/s. Santha Industrials had designed a Tilting Type Wet Grinder and registered the same in his name and the same is patented under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911 in his name. The patent number is 156166. The brand name and the Logo embossed on the wet grinders were applied for registration by him as proprietor of M/s. Santha Industrials. These patented tilting type wet grinders were manufactured only from his own unit till 1985. In this connection, it was found that Shri R. Doraiswamy had given advertisement in newspapers prohibiting the use of his design, trade name and Logo by others without his consent.

(j) Internal Memo directing the other units for payment of dues to the supplier was issued by Shri R. Doraiswamy.

(k) It is alleged that Shri R. Doraiswamy, Proprietor of M/s. Santha Industrials in his statement dt. 1-3-1989 had inter alia admitted that the Tilting Type Wet Grinders was patented in his name and he had given advertisement prohibiting the manufacture and sale of this patented Tilting Type Wet Grinder by others but had permitted the other 10 units (though not in writing) listed in Annexure I to manufacture the patented Tilting Type Wet Grinders with the brand name 'Santha'. He also said to have admitted that he is not receiving any royalty from the 10 units, and that he had placed orders for procurement of raw-materials in respect of the said 10 units.

vii. It is only with reference to tilting type wet grinders that the design had been registered under Designs Act, 1911 and Designs Rules 1933; the pattern has been applied for under Patents Act, 1970 by Shri R. Doraiswamy and the tilting type wet grinder manufactured by all the 11 units for its own benefits, and part of manufacture in connection with sales entered into selling agreements with M/s. Santha Industrials marketing division.

viii. Mere fact that the brand name or the logo is affixed by the respective manufacturer would not make the brand name holder Shri R. Doraiswamy, the manufacturer of tilting type wet grinders actually manufactured by one of the remaining ten units covered in the show-cause notice. The conventional type of wet grinders manufactured by the respective units of their own name plate and sold directly to respective dealers and through marketing division of M/s. Santha Industrials.

(iii) Whether the demands are barred by time?

It is seen that department had initiated proceedings against

1. Zenith Industries, by SCN dated 18-7-1986 and order-in-original dated 31-3-1987,

2. DSB Industrials, SCN dated 8-8-1985 and order-in-original dated 30-9-1985

3. Deepalakshmi Enterprises, SCN dated 23-4-1984, order-in-original dated 25-6-1985

4. D.J. Indl, SCN dated 26-9-1986 and order-in-original dated 16-3-1987.

The proceedings pertain to manufacture of Jet pumps, mono-blocks and electric motors. The demands have all been confirmed in the said orders-in-original. The statement of K. Devaraj, Partner of DSB Industrials was recorded on 4-2-1985 by Asstt. Collector, CE H. Qtr., Coimbatore. He has clearly answered that he is manufacturing 'Santha' Tilting Wet Grinder and has given particulars of Regd. Design Nos. and affixing of brand name. The sample of name plate with brand name was also furnished. The appellants have produced gate passes with seal of the department of the year 1988, showing the brand name of 'Santha'. The declarations have also been filed. All these details clearly disclose that the department had the knowledge of the manufacture of Tilting Wet Grinders, in the brand name of 'Santha'. The department had adjudicated also on some of the items manufactured by same units. All units are situated in close proximity. Therefore, it cannot be said that the department had no knowledge of manufacture of the 'Santha' brand Tilting Wet Grinders, which brand name was owned by Shri Doraiswamy. The department had considered four units as independent units and now it cannot be said that there are factors, which have not come to light and hence there is suppression of facts to lead to conclusion of evasion of duty. The findings of the ld. Collector and the relied references of the department do not inspire us to confirm the said conclusions of the ld. Collector. Hence, we hold the demands as barred by limitation. We also notice one infirmity and that is, the ld. Collector has not specified clearly for confirmation of demands on any one unit. As we have held that each of the units are independent their clearances for six months period also cannot be clubbed. In that view of the matter, no penalty is also leviable and hence the impugned order is set aside and all the appeals are allowed [with] consequential reliefs, if any.