Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The appellants contest the findings in the impugned order passed by the appellate authority that the printed paper backed aluminium foil made out of duty paid aluminium foil, bearing their logo, trade mark and particulars of their product, is marketable. According to them the same were not capable of being bought and sold in the market for sale.

2. We have heard both sides.

3. The product in question bears the logo 'PARLE MONACO'. We find that in 1993 the appellants had placed orders on India Foils for manufacture of printed paper backed aluminium foil bearing the logo PARLE-G which is one variety of biscuits manufactured by the appellants. Thus it clearly shows that printed paper backed aluminium foil bearing manufacturer's logo is capable of being marketed in the sense that the appellants themselves were purchasers/buyers of such products. The fact that during the period in dispute, namely, 1980 to 1987, the appellant themselves were manufacturers of the disputed product for their own use cannot alter the fact that the goods in question are capable of being marketed. Tlie contention of the appellants, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Cable Company Limited v. CCE - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.) that they are not purchasers (as they are only actual users of the product in dispute) and therefore the goods fail the test of marketability, is not acceptable for the reason that an actual user can also be a purchaser. The goods in question are capable of being bought and sold and hence satisfy the test of marketability.