2012 (9) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeal is by the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Tribunal [2010 (249) E.L.T. 268 (Tri.-Bang.)] holding that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification Nos. 6/02 and 4/06 dated 1-3-2002 as amended, they were affixing the words 'RAMCO PRODUCT' in the local language and they were also selling the cement under their own trade mark 'KARTHIC'. The Revenue proceeded ag .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... owner of the brand name "RAMCO PRODUCT". The assessee contends that "RAMCO" is their own brand name. They submit that approval for the brand name "RAMCO" was given in the year 1987. They have submitted a copy of registration certificate. In those circumstances. the Tribunal held that the assessee did not violate the condition of notification and accordingly is entitled to exemption under the notif .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g the brand name of another son is in accordance with law? (3)     Whether the impugned order of the CESTAT is correct and legal in extending the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. in favour of the respondent when there is no ambiguity in the notification? (4)     Whether the order of the CESTAT in holding that the brand name "RAMCO" belongs to the re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X