9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r used by the appellants - See case of Pethe Brake Motors (P) Ltd [2015 (5) TMI 491 - SUPREME COURT] wherein as held the respondent assessee was not using the branded name of another person and the name used was the surname of the Director of the assessee Thus appellant is entitled for benefit of SSI exemption under N/N. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame of Kohli and selling thereof. As Kohli brand name is owned by M/s RSV industries (India) under the proprietary of Shri. Rajinder Kumar Kohli, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for benefit of SSI exemption under Notification 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. The show cause notice was issued to the appellant and it was held that the appellant is using the brand name of third party, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f SSI exemption cannot be denied. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned order is to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, the ld. AR submits that the appellant is a partnership firm and having two partners namely: Shri. Gayatri Kholi and Shri. Shashi Kochar, therefore, Kohli cannot in the surname of the appellant firm, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit of SSI exemption under Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it was using branded name of another person and therefore in terms of para 4 of the said Notification it was not entitled to the exemption. 2 . However, we find that finding of fact is recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment that the respondent assessee was not using the branded name of another person and the name used was the surname of the Director of the assesse, viz., P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
