2018 (6) TMI 321

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... amesh Nair This appeal has been filed by the Appellant against Order-in-Appeal dt. 29.01.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Pune - III. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellants are engaged in manufacture of 'Plate Heat Exchangers' affixed with brand name 'SWEP' and 'Traps' with brand name 'RIFOX'. They were availing benefit of SSI Exemption Notification No. 8/2003 - CE dt. 01. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng that they were manufacturing goods under brand name 'RIFOX - India'. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order rejected the appeal on the ground that since the Order-in-Appeal dt. 31.08.2006 denying SSI Exemption and ordering requantification of duty has not been challenged therefore the appeal against the confirmation of demand by the adjudicating authority is not maintainable. He acc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ppeal before Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that they are manufacturing goods bearing brand name 'Rifox India' and not 'Refox'. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant should have approached the CESTAT against order-in-appeal dt. 31.08.2006. He also held that the Appellant in previous round of proceedings .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X