2010 (9) TMI 523

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that the respondent knowingly used the said brand name while wrongly claiming exemption under the SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2001-C.E. dated 1-3-2001 - The decision of the Tribunal where in such cases the exemption was being extended - Hence, do not find any valid reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) - Appeal for seeking enhancement of penalty is, therefore, with .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... seeks restoration of the penalty of equal amount as imposed by the original authority. 3. Undisputedly, the brand name PRINCE did not belong to the respondent. However, no evidence has been relied upon indicating that the respondent using the said brand name was registered in the name of some other person and that the respondent knowingly used the said brand name while wrongly claiming exempt .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X