9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 523X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The lower authorities demanded duty of Rs. 92,535/- from the appellant for the period 1-7-94 to 12-1-95, by denying SSI exemption to the branded goods removed by them during the said period. They also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant. Hence the present appeal. 2. There is no representation for the appellant despite notice, nor is there any request for adjournment. The matter has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. Upon perusal of the memorandum of appeal, we find that the appellants have not recognized M M as a brand name. The appellant has also relied on Board s Circular No. 52/52/94-CX., dated 1-9-94. Ld. DR submits that this Circular is not applicable to the instant case inasmuch as the brand name in question was admittedly owned by Shri V.M.S. Midha during the relevant period. In this connectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssions of ld. DR, we find that it is an admitted fact that the brand name M M was admittedly related to the personal reputation of Shri V.M.S. Midha in his business in the name and style of M/s. Midha Midha. It is clearly discernible from his statement that he had a good reputation in the market. Obviously the above brand name was a career of his reputation in the market. If that be so, M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
