9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 28X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 35L of the Act - Appeal is rejected - C.E.A. No. 128 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 11-4-2011 - N. Kumar and Ravi Malimath, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Jeevan J. Neeralgi, Advocate, for the Appellant. [Judgment per : N. Kumar, J.]. This 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d their trade name KARTHIC on HDPE bags containing cement. The words RAMCO PRODUCT were also written. It is the case of the Department that RAMCO is the brand name of other person. In the show cause notice issued. It is not mentioned who is the 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 RA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in allowing the appeal of the respondent thereby permitting to avail the benefit of the Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. and thereby extending the scope and object of the Notification though the respondent is using 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 35L of the Act. 4. In that view of the matter, without deciding the substantial question of law which is framed in this appeal, we reject this appeal as not maintainable. However liberty is reserved to the Revenue to appreach the Apex Court for adjudication of the substantial question of law raised in this appeal. 5. The High Court Registry is directed to return the certified copies o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
