9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 321X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bearing brand name ‘Rifox’ and had sent the case back to the adjudicating authority only for limited purpose i.e to compute the demand on the goods bearing said brand name. The said order of Commissioner (Appeals) denying SSI Exemption to goods bearing brand name ‘RIFOX’ was not challenged by the Appellant before CESTAT and has thus attained finality. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) None for appellant Shri N.N. Prabhudesai, Superintendent (AR), for respondent Per: Ramesh 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' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name 'RIFOX'. The Appellant being aggrieved by the said order filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) contending 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 challe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd passing of the order by the adjudicating authority as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the Appellant filed appeal 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 approach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
