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

..... mber (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 relevant time. They used the brand name of PREMIER alon .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 interest of both the firms in the business of each .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mmissioner (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. S. Sivanesan Co., there is additional partner, mother o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X