9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 805X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ria, 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. The facts of the case are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Power Press and putting brand name Basant thereon. Intelligence was gathered by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Elex Industries Vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2003 (158) ELT 602 (Tri. Del.) allowed the benefit of exemption notification. Aggrieved from the said order, Revenue is before us. 3. The contention of the Revenue is that during the course of investigation the proprietor of respondent firm has himself admitted that he is using the brand name of other person and the brand name is in the name of Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. In that circumstance, this Tribunal hold that the appellant is not using the brand name of other person and allowed the benefit of SSI exemption. The said order has been affirmed by the jurisdictional High Court reported in - 2010 (258) ELT A48 (P&H). Against the said order, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported as - 2012(283) ELT A18 (SC). He furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case laws relied upon by the ld. AR also says so. The facts of this case are altogether different from the case law relied upon by ld. AR. In fact, in this the facts before us are that the respondent is a proprietary ship concern, who is using the brand name of a partnership concern, where the proprietor of the respondent firm is a partner. Therefore, the fact of this case are identical to the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
