2002 (12) TMI 472

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....araman, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J) (Oral)]. -  This is a Revenue appeal arising from the Order-in-Original No. 13/97, dt. 5-3-97, by which the Commissioner has dropped the proceedings against the respondents. However, by the impugned order, he confirmed the demands against M/s. Queen Electrical Industries. The reason for dropping the demands again....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ave contended that they were not using their brand name and hence the benefit could not be denied to them. The Commissioner had upheld the assessee's contention and hence the Revenue is in appeal. 3. Ld. DR reiterated the contention raised in the appeal memo that the respondent M/s. Queen Electrical Industries had removed Choke with the brand names of "Queen" and "Supreme" therefore, the a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ubmits that M/s. Queen Electrical Industries had filed an appeal before this Bench and this Bench also set aside the impugned order on time bar aspect as reported in [2002 (150) E.L.T. 284 (T) =  2002 (51) RLT 62]. Therefore, even otherwise the Revenue's appeal cannot be up held on the ground of limitation. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we no....