2003 (1) TMI 627

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i L.P. Asthana, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The above captioned appeals have been directed by the Revenue against the common order-in-appeal dated 28-6-2002 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reversed the order-in-original of the Joint Commissioner dated 29-12-99. 2. The respondents were served with the show cause notice for disallowing SSI exemption under Notification .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e was no suppression of facts from the Department by the respondents. 5. I have heard and gone through the record. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held the demand to be time-barred. For so holding, he has relied upon the observations of the Apex Court in CCE v. Champhar Drugs and Liniments - 1989 (40) E.L.T. 276, that suppression of fa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he manufacture of the goods under the brand name "Kamal" by the respondents and that the demand from 1-3-97 to 10-1-98 was time-barred. There exists no cogent reasons to disagree with his findings for want of any evidence on record to support the allegations of the suppression of facts by the respondents from the Department regarding the use of the brand name of another person by them in the manuf .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X