9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (8) TMI 181X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enial of benefit of SSI exemption in terms of Notification No. 16/97-C.E., dated 1-4-1997 up to 1-6-1998 and thereafter under Notification No. 8/98-C.E., dated 2-6-1998 on the ground that they have used the 'Logo' and 'Brand name' of another unit viz. M/s. Shri Bajrang Alloys Ltd. The contention of the appellant is that the Raipur unit has not used the brand name or logo on the goods but was only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ole users of the brand name 'GOEL' and the logo. The other unit has never claimed the brand name or the logo. The Revenue has not proved that the logo in question or the words 'Goel' or 'Bajrang' are owned by the Raipur Company. The Raipur Company has not affixed this brand name on their goods and, therefore, the contention that the Revenue has not proved the use of logo by M/s. Raipur Company is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Ltd. - 2005 (180) E.L.T. 462 (Tri.-Bang.) case, this plea is required to be accepted. The Apex Court, in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. M/s. Bhalla Enterprises - 2004 (173) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.), has held that the assessee would be equally entitled to the benefit, if they demonstrate the ownership of the brand name. As the appellants have established the same, the benefit is required to be granted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and name of another person, as was the case in Grasim Industries. 4. We also find that the plea raised by the assessee pertaining to the demands being hit by time-bar is also a well taken ground as they had filed the classification list and in which they had clearly mentioned that they would be availing the benefit of SSI exemption under the relevant Notification. They had filed price declaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
