9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (7) TMI 483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bajaj, Member (J)]. In this appeal the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the duty demand and set aside the confiscation of the unaccounted goods. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. No request for adjournment has also been received from them, therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal after ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... logo/House Mark of M/s. Prem (another person) on the goods could not disentitle the respondents from SSI exemption as they were using their brand name also. But the view taken up by him cannot be accepted being contrary to the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Trichy v Grasim Industries Ltd. reported in 2005 (183) E.L.T. 123 (S.C.) = 2005 (99) ECC 713 wherein it has been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vided and ld. Commissioner (Appeals) could not set aside the confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine on the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order in this regard cannot be sustained. In the light of the above discussions, the impugned order is set aside and the order-in-original is restored. Appeal of the Revenue accordingly stands accepted. (Order dictated in the open Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
