2005 (9) TMI 353

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. - This appeal filed by Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No. 299/98, dated 6-10-98 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai. The respondents were engaged in the manufacture and sale of "pressure cookers", an excisable commodity. They were also availing the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 at the relevan .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal of the respondents. The main thrust of the Revenue's appeal is that the respondents used the brand name, which was registered with M/s. S. Sivanesan & Co. with partners as registered proprietors. According to the Revenue, the case relates to brand name concept and the respondents are not eligible for availing the exemption. The Commissioner (Appeals) has gone into the aspect of identity of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nue is aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. Shri B.L. Meena, SDR appeared for the appellant-revenue and Sri T.S. Balasubramaniam, Advocate appeared for the respondents. 3. We have gone through the records of the case carefully. There are actually two partnership firms in the name of M/s. Sivanesan & Co. in the case of the second partnership firm viz. M/s. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X