9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (1) TMI 478X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. Heard both sides. 2. The appellant filed these appeals against the orders-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Common issue involved in these appeals, therefore, are being taken up together. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of water filter. On 16-9-98 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an appeal on the ground that reference application has been filed against the order passed by the Tribunal where such a view has been taken and the reference application is pending in the Hon ble High Court. 5. The contention of the appellant is that the water filters in question are cleared on payment of duty on 25-9-95 and these were received back in their factory in the month of December 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in their own case dated 21-6-2000 [2000 (120) E.L.T. 357 (Tri.)] held that the brand name should be treated as brand name of the appellants. There is no stay order passed by the Hon ble High Court, therefore, the contention of the appellant is that the benefit was rightly granted to them. 7. The contention of the Revenue is that the 1216 water filters were received in the factory in December 199 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers after August 1998. Therefore, the water filters found in factory are not the defective filters rather these are new manufactured filters and which were not entered in statutory records. 8. In this case the goods were seized on the ground that these were not entered in statutory records. The contention of the appellant is that these were defective goods received in the factory. The appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion was required after six months to retain the duty paid returned goods in the factory and the appellant had not asked for any permission from the competent authority to retain the goods after a specified period, the demand is also rightly made. In these circumstances we find no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, hence dismissed. 9. In respect of the appeal filed by Revenue in view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
