9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Awsthi, Advocate for the Assessee ORDER Per Mr. Anil Choudhary The issue in these appeals by Revenue is, whether the respondent Mercury (International) Pvt. Ltd. have manufactured and cleared goods of brand name of another and thus have wrongly claimed SSI exemption. 2. The brief facts as per the show-cause-notice dated 15.12.2006 issued to all the respondents herein is that M/s Exion (India) Pvt. Ltd. (EIPL for short) and M/s Mercury (International) Pvt. Ltd. (MIPL for short) situated in near vicinity of each other, were engaged in manufacture of Sodium Hypochlorite Solution (falling under Chapter Heading 28.28 of CETA, 1985) and other products like Glassy Sodium Metaphosphate Water Treatment Plants without obtaining Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MIPL with interest. Further penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- was imposed on respondents EIPL and Durgesh Rai, Director, each. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order have been pleased to allow the appeals recording the following findings: Arguing the case, the appellant had categorically contended that Calfix Grade-A was a descriptive nomenclature of the product and not a brand name or trade name used in the course of trade. The issue involved and merit consideration in the appeals is as to whether Calfix Grade-A was a brand name of Appellant No.2 within the definition as given in Notification No.8/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 for the purpose of disentitlement of SSI exemp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nical) was the brand of Appellant No.2 but Director has denied it to be their brand. No further evidence has been adduced that if Calfix (Grade-A-Technical) is a brand, to whom it belonged to. On the other hand, Appellant has clarified that Calfix is nomenclature of water treatment chemical namely Sodium HydroSulphite which was being frequently supplied by various independent vendors to Central Government, State Government their undertaking organizations against tenders awarded to them. Further, it is also not a case of the Revenue that the appellant had exceeded the exemption limit prescribed under Notification No.8/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 in the respective years. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that Calfix (Gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
