9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Order per: M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) (Oral)]. - This is an appeal by the Department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) No. 263-264/CE/Appl/Jal/2004 dated 31-5-2004. 2. None appears for the respondents in spite of notice. Heard the learned DR for the Department. 3. The relevant facts in brief are that, M/s. Karan Enterprises is a Proprietorship concern of Mrs. Rajini Chopra w/o Shri V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Karan Enterprises have cleared the machinery with the brand name belonging to third party and, therefore, not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 1/93. The original authority confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.3,50,369/- along with interest and imposed equal amount as penalty under Section 11AC read with Rule 173Q. He also imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on M/s. Metal Fold Fasteners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t have allowed the appeal. He seeks setting aside of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restoring the order of the original authority. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned SDR and perused the record. It is the claim of M/s. Metal Fold Fasteners that the brand name used by them was 'Metal Fold Machinery' in red colour and the claim of M/s. Karan Enterprises is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir brand name which is different from the brand name of M/s. Metal Fold Fasteners. Such a claim has been made by the authorized representative of M/s. Karan Enterprises. Under these circumstances, the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the appeal of M/s. Karan Enterprises cannot be found fault with.
7. In view of the above, the appeal by the Department is rejected. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
