2002 (12) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. This is a Revenue appeal arising from the Order-in-Original No. 13/97, dt. 5-3-97, by which the Commissioner has dropped the proceedings against the respondents. However, by the impugned order, he confirmed the demands against M/s. Queen Electrical Industries. The reason for dropping the demands against the respondent was that they were not using the brand name of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... benefit could not be denied to them. The Commissioner had upheld the assessee s contention and hence the Revenue is in appeal. 3. Ld. DR reiterated the contention raised in the appeal memo that the respondent M/s. Queen Electrical Industries had removed Choke with the brand names of Queen and Supreme therefore, the assessees, who were using the same brand names for Tube light patties, should .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... and this Bench also set aside the impugned order on time bar aspect as reported in [2002 (150) E.L.T. 284 (T) = 2002 (51) RLT 62]. Therefore, even otherwise the Revenue s appeal cannot be up held on the ground of limitation. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we notice that the Commissioner has carefully considered the submissions and found that the respon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X