9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Tribunal has held that if the person who is using the brand name of another firm where he is a Director, Partner or Proprietor then it cannot be said that the assessee is using the brand name of other person - benefit allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/2501/2009-DB - A/61066/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 9-6-2017 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) Shri G.M. Sharma, AR for the Appellant - Revenue Shri Vikrant Kackria, advocate for the Respondent ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the adjudicating authority granted benefit of SSI Exemption Notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 to the respondent. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 003-CE dated 01.03.2003 is not available to the respondent. He relied on the decision in the case of Galaxy Sanitarywares (P) Limited Vs. CCE Rajkot - 2005 (189) ELT 162 (Tri. Mumbai) and Royal Springs Vs. CCE, New Delhi - 2002 (146) ELT 571 (Tri.-Delhi) which has been affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court reported as 203 (152) ELT A263 (SC). 4. On the other hand, contention of the ld. AR is strongly opposed by the ld. Counsel. He submits that in the case of Elex Industries (supra), similar issue has been decided by the Tribunal and in that case, the proprietor of the firm was Director in the other firm whose brand name was being used by the appellant in that case. In that circumstance, this Tribunal hold that the appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore, the fact of this case are identical to the facts in the case of Elex Industries (supra), wherein this Tribunal has held that if the person who is using the brand name of another firm where he is a Director, Partner or Proprietor then it cannot be said that the assessee is using the brand name of other person. The said view of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court. In that circumstance, in this case, the facts stated hereinabove have not been disputed and therefore, we hold that ld. adjudicating authority has rightly allowed the benefit of exemption notification No.8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 to the respondent. Consequently, no duty demand is sustainable against the respondent. 7. In view of the above, we do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
