9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 618X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 55/2002-RP dated 30.09.2002. The assessees are manufacturers of Gases falling under Chapters 28 and 29 of the Schedule to CET. They availed the benefit of SSI Notification. It was noticed by the Department that another company's name viz. M/s. 'The Oxygen Equipment and Engineering Co. Ltd. (M/s. OXEECO.)' had been affixed on the Cylinders. Hence, the benefit was proposed to be denied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated on the empty cylinders. The goods are sold in the brand name of the other person. The respondents have taken a plea that the Revenue has taken new grounds in the memo of appeal which cannot be considered. In this regard, they rely on the following rulings. (i) In the case of Universal Heat Exchangers vs. CCE, Coimbatore - 2000 (122) ELT 770 (Tribunal), the Tribunal has held that the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion that the assessee had used the brand name of another person. Hence, the order was set aside by allowing the appeal. (ii) In the case of Panchsheel Enterprises vs. CCE, New Delhi - 1999 (108) ELT 494 (Tribunal), the Tribunal held that markings put on the product to distinguish buyers does not lead to a conclusion of trade mark/brand name. (iii) In the case of Unisys vs. CCE, Chandigarh - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
