9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decision in the light of the referred judgments - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/748 to 750, 813, 930/2010 - A/87599-87603/2018 - Dated:- 8-10-2018 - Mrs.Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Shri Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri.Chirag Shetty Shri Satish Joshi, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri. S. Hasija, Supdt. (AR) PER : MRS.ARCHANA WADHWA 1. All these appeals are being disposed off by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner. 2. After hearing both sides represented by Shri. Chirag Shetty, Ld. Advocate for the appellant and Shri. S. Hasija, Ld. Supdt. (AR) for the Revenue, we find that M/s.Automats (India) is engaged in the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t with M/s.Asra, who has assigned the brand names to them. As such they contended that in terms of agreement, they became the owner of the brand names and as such use of the same will not debar them from the entitlement of Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28/02/1993. The said plea of the appellant does not stand accepted by the adjudicating authority on the ground that as per the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Bangalore Vs. Vetcare Organics Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2015 (321) ELT 384 (SC), the permission of the brand name owner to use the brand name will not dilute the various clauses of the SSI exemption notification in question and the assignee of the brand name would be hit by the bar of such use and the benefit of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te appearing for the appellant fairly concedes that the said legal issue was not specifically raised before the adjudicating authority and his attention was not brought to the above decisions. As such he submits that the impugned be set aside and the matter be remanded for fresh consideration, in the light of the law declared in the above referred judgments or any other decisions, which he may choose to rely upon. 5. Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue does not object to the remand request. 6. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matters to the original adjudicating authority for fresh decision in the light of the above referred judgments. Needless to say that the appellant would be given an opportunit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
