2001 (12) TMI 778

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Applicant. Shri A. Chopra, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Gowri Shankar, Member (T)]. - The matter was adjourned on the last occasion when it came to the light that only one appeal had been filed against the order of the Commissioner disposing of seven appeals before him, Counsel for the applicant sought time to file other appeals. These appeals and application for condonation of dela .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s but applicant was unaware of the fact that such appeals were required to be filed. Accordingly we condone the delay. 4. The application is for waiver of deposit of duty of Rs. 21.94 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 3.15 lakhs. Duty has been demanded on the ground that the applicants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification 1/93 for the lapping machine that it manufactured. The department f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t Egg Factory v. CCE - 1996 (85) E.L.T. 78 and Precise Electronics v. CCE - 1993 (65) E.L.T. 69. 6. The Departmental representative cites the decision of CCE v. Control Tech Electronics - 2000 (120) E.L.T. 369 in support. The question for consideration in the two decisions that the Counsel for the applicant relies upon is that use of a brand name belonging to a fire work manufacturer by a py .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X