9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.B. Ghorpade was the proprietor. He was also Managing Director of the appellant/assessee company. Show-cause notice dt. 30/04/2003 was issued proposing denial of SSI exemption and the demand of differential duty was confirmed in the Order-in-Original dt. 31/10/2003 to the extent of Rs. 17,53,191/- with interest by the Additional Commissioner. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed on the appellant. When the case was challenged in appeal, the Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the Order-in-Original. Hence the present appeal. 2. With the above background, we heard Shri Raghavendra B Hanjer, learned advocate for the appellant as well as Shri Mohammad Yousuf, learned AR appearing for the Revenue. 3. The main grounds advanced by the appellant a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name was not declared, it cannot be considered as suppression. 4. Learned AR supported the orders passed by the authorities below. Opposing the grounds advanced by the appellant, he submitted that the SSI Notifications whose benefit has been availed by the appellant clearly specify that the benefit will not be allowable in respect of the goods cleared by the manufacturer by affixing brand name belonging to another. In the present case, the goods have been cleared with the brand name TRANSPADE which does not belong to the appellant. Accordingly authorities below have rightly denied the benefit of the SSI notification. He also relied on several case laws including CCE, Delhi Vs. Ace Auto Comp. Ltd. [2011(263) ELT 3(SC)], CCE, Jaipur-I Vs. Du ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany (appellant). Shri Ghorphade in his statement admitted that the brand name of TRANSPADE is used in respect of the goods manufactured by both the proprietorship as well as private limited companies in respect of the same products i.e. cranes. On this basis, Revenue has alleged that the brand name used by the appellant does not belong to them and hence has proceeded to deny the SSI exemption. 5.3. The appellant has relied upon several case laws in which the eligibility for SSI benefit in respect of goods cleared with brand name has been decided in favour of the assesses. In the case of CCE Vs. Minimax Industries (supra), the Hon ble Delhi High Court had occasion to examine a similar case of denial of SSI benefit in respect of goods clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtment that the said MEI has allowed the partnership firm to use the said name. The Tribunal has also arrived at a finding of fact that Minimax has not acquired any such reputation that it can be associated with MEI . 16. .... ... ...... 17. On the other hand, in the present case nothing could be brought on record by the Department to demonstrate or prove that Minimax has acquired any brand name or trade name as defined in Explanation IX of the Notification No. 1/93-C.E. 18. For all these reasons, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises. This appeal is accordingly dismissed." 6. We also find that similar issue has come up before the Tribunal in a recent case. In the case of CCE&ST, Indore Vs. Sanjay Agarwal [201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
