9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e respondent Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the duty was demanded by denying the benefit of SSI exemption Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant were engaged in manufacturing of valves, cocks and pipe fittings under the brand name 'Kohli'. The case of the Revenue is that as during the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, cocks & pipe fitting and hand tools and they are started manufacturing activity w.e.f. 23.09.2006 which has been closed on 03.04.2007. Moreover, the appellant is a partnership firm of Smt. Gayatri Kohli and Shri. Shashi Kochar. The Kohli is the surname of Smt. Gayatri Kohli, the partner of the firm, therefore, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pethe Brake Motors ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (India) under the proprietor of Shri. Rajinder Kumar Kohli. We find that the Smt. Gayatri Kohli one of the partner of the appellant's firm and 'Kohli' is a surname, therefore, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pethe Brake Motors (P) Ltd, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "1. This is not in dispute that the respondent is an SSI unit. However, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. In that circumstance, we hold that the benefit of exemption under notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 cannot be denied. Consequently, demands against the appellant are not sustainable. Accordingly, the same are set aside. In result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated and pronounced in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
