9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner (Appeals), Gurgaon. By the impugned order while rejecting the appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the adjudicating authority, the penalty was enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The Assistant Commissioner, Gurgaon by its order dated 28.12.2007 had confirmed the demand of Rs.50,975/- along with interest and had imposed penalty of Rs.2,000/-. 3. In Appeal No.E/931 of 2009, the same arises from the order dated 22.1.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Gurgaon. By the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants against the order of the adjudicating authority. The Additional Commissioner, Gurgaon by his order dated 31.12.2007 had confirmed the duty demand of Rs.24,18,812/- al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SSI exemption in cases where the manufacturer uses the brand name of another person. The exemption benefit under the said SSI notification does not relate to the branded goods when the brand name is of the manufacturer himself. Secondly, there is no bar for availing such benefit when in relation to some other goods the duty is paid. 8. Learned Advocate for the appellants drawing our attention to the decision of the Tribunal in Cure Quick Remedies P. Ltd. and others vs. C.C.E., Panchkula and Anr. reported in 2010 (8) RLTONLINE 537 submitted that the issue involved stands settled by the said decision in favour of the assessee. The contention in that regard is not disputed on behalf of the Department. The DR fairly conceded that the is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther held that The exemption envisaged for the specified goods accrues to them through instrumentality of the manufacturer. The notification clearly demarcated the two categories of manufacturers . While distinguishing the decision in the matter of C.C.E., Ahmedabad vs. Ramesh Food Products reported in 2005 (66) RLT 4 (SC), the Tribunal held that Taking into consideration the facts of the matter in Ramesh Food Products case and bearing in mind the pre-conditoin for availing the benefit of Notification No.175/86-CE daed 1.3.86, it is abundantly clear that the manufacturer thereunder was given clear option to choose between the two benefits, one under the notification and another under the modvat scheme and not to avail both the benefits si ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
