9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used by another unit as "Sudhir Engineering Company". Plea that "Sudhir" a common name, cannot be considered as brand name at all and be connected to manufacturer. Held that - Following decision of SUDHIR GENSETS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, VAPI [2010 (3) TMI 556 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - Decided against Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21-7-2009 in the matter of CCE v. M/s. Swati Chemicals Industries & Others (which is under challenge in Tax Appeal (Stamp) No. 4677 of 2009, and pending before this Hon'ble High Court)? B. Whether the assessee is entitled in the year 2010, to have the benefit of the proviso to Section 11AC of the said Act, which was very much available and open to the said assessee in the year 2005, though the O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with all the four provisos to Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Tax Appeal (Stamp) No. 4677/2009 preferred by the Revenue before this Hon'ble High Court is pending)?" 2. Though multiple questions are framed, the central issue is common, namely, reduction of penalty under Section 11AC of the Act to one-fourth on the ground that such amount was paid within 30 days fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise & Customs v. Rama Synsilk Mills P. Ltd., decided on 21-1-2010. This Court after considering the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise v. Malbro Appliances, 2007 (79) RLT 109 (Del.), Union of India v. Dharamendra Textiles, 2008 (231) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), Union of India v. Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills, 2009 (238) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), K.P. Pouches (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2008 (228) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
