9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the departmental appeal and setting aside the OIO passed by DC, Belgaum. The DC had held that the goods manufactured and cleared were not branded goods inasmuch as they were "not consumer goods that market is depended on the name"(sic). The Revenue's contention before the Commissioner was that in Notification No. 1/93, there is no distinction between consu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... point except to personally hold that affixing the name of the company amounts to using the brand name. This has been seriously challenged by the appellants. The appellants contend that the Revenue has not discharged its burden to show that the assessee had used the brand name of another person. In this case, they rely on the ruling rendered in the case of Khanna Industries v. CCE. Chandigarh - 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. He also relied on the judgment of LMS Tool Room v. CCE, Rajkot - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 199 (Tri.) = 2001 (46) RLT 737 (CEGAT-Del.) wherein it has been held that the burden of proof is on the department to prove that the appellants are using the brand name of another person who is not eligible to SSI benefit. He submits that Shyamala Pipes and Fittings were eligible as SSI unit and hence the judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant that Shyamala Pipes and Fittings are eligible for the benefit of SSI exemption and the appellants having used their company's name would not dis-entitle the benefit of the Notification. The arguments and the contentions raised by the appellants are terms of the citations referred to by them. Shyamala is not a trade name or brand name and the Revenue has not established that Shyamala is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
