9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 883X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quest. Accordingly I have heard learned JDR, Shri R.S. Srova and have gone through the impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). 2. It is seen that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of gear boxes and parts falling under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are using the brand name ADROL on the finished product, which brand name belongs to them. However d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting authority along with interest and penalty of Rs.50,000/- imposed upon the appellant. 4. On being aggrieved with the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The appellate authority, vide her stay order, directed the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.75,000/- as a condition of hearing of their appeal. In as much as the said deposit was not made by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly on the sale invoices and no evidence stands produced by the Revenue to show that the same was also affixed on the goods in question. It is only when the goods are affixed with the brand name of another person, who is not entitled to avail the benefit of small scale exemption, that the said benefit can be denied to the assessee. As such I am of the view that the appellant has been able to make o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
