hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2009 M/s. Capital Controls India Pvt. Ltd. .. Appellant Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise ... Respondent Mr. M.H.. Patil with Ms. Aparna Hirandagi for the Appellant. Mr. R.V. Desai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R. B. Pardeshi for Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 05, 2009 P.C. Heard. The submission on behalf of the appellant before us, is that by agreement dated 9th January, 1996 the appellants the user of the mark, had been assigned in their favour. Subsequently the mark had been registered in their name in India. The tribunal it appears has not considered the true import of Clause 19 of the agreement dated 9th January, 1996. On behalf of the appellant the leaned counsel submits that the appellant had also pointed out various judgments of the Supreme Court in their support, which have not been considered as also the issue of limitation. Considering the facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the tribunal for de novo consideration according to Law. Appeal disposed of accordingly. (D.G. KARNIK,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)