TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2000 (12) TMI 498
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom the evidences material and documentary relied upon by the lower adjudicating authority that there was a trade nexus between the impugned goods manufactured by the appellants and M/s. K.S. Valves Forgings, Jalandhar. Therefore, the lower authority is correct by not extending the benefits of exemption, which was hit by limitation of para (4) read with explanation IX to Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28-2-1993 as amended. I do not find any merits in the appeal to disturb the impugned orders of the lower authority. Accordingly, I uphold the same.' Being aggrived by this order, the appellants have filed the captioned appeal. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of sanitary fittings....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....resent case. She submits that the department has not brought on record any evidence to prove that as to who was registered or otherwise owner of the brand name "COX". She submits that nowhere it has been brought on record that the particular owner of the brand name "COX" was not eligible to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 1/93-C.E. She submits that the appellants sell their goods sometime without any brand name. She submits that the goods are sometimes sold under the brand name 'Tulsi'. She submits that M/s. K.S. Valves Forgings used the brand name "COX" for short period of time and only in respect of the goods supplied to the Government department which were of value of around Rs. 1.5 lakhs. She submits that for denying the benef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd relies upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Kalinga Cable Co. v. CCE [1999 (111) E.L.T. 190 (T) = 2000 (88) ECR 898]. 5. Ld. Counsel submits that an alternative plea of the appellants is that even if the brand name belongs to M/s. K.S. Valves Forgings, the benefit of exemption would be admissible to M/s. K.S. Valves Forgings as a SSI unit. She submits that even on this pretext, the benefit of notification cannot be denied to the appellants. 6. Ld. Advocate submits that the goods lying in the factory premises cannot be confiscated. She submits that since the appellants had not contravened any of the provisions of Central Excise Rules and, therefore penalty was not warranted in this case. She therefore prays that t....