2003 (6) TMI 313

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Pushkarna, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. The above captioned appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the common order-in-appeal dated 8-11-2002 vide which penalty of Rs. 20,000/- has been confirmed on appellants No. 1, M/s. Sona Winding Wires, while confiscation of the goods of appellants No. 2, M/s. Mayur Metal (India), besides confirmation of duty with penalty, as de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... h the record. Admittedly, the appellants No. 1 is a trader. The seized goods were purchased by him from appellants No. 2, who is a SSI unit and having not crossed the limit, was not required to pay any duty thereof while making sale of the same to appellants No. 1 The plea of the Department that goods cleared were branded goods bearing the brand name SONA and as such the duty was required to be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... brand name SONA had been affixed on the goods by appellants No. 1 after the purchase, as observed above, and this fact was also not denied by appellants No. 1. 5. It also remains undisputed that appellants No. 2 is a SSI unit and had not crossed the prescribed limit. Therefore, no duty was required to be paid by them at the time of clearances of the goods being within the exemption limit. The .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X