2004 (2) TMI 498

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., for the Appellant. Shri Uma Shankar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. -  Vide the impugned order the Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune has confirmed the duty demand of Rs. 16,35,727/- on the appellants and imposed penalty equal to duty upon them on the ground that they had wrongly availed small-scale exemption under Notification 1/93, dated ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... identical to one of the products manufactured by the brand name owner, in the light of the ratio of the Larger Bench decision in the case of CCE, Chandigarh v. Fine Industries - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 53. On time bar also the appellants do not have a case in view of the clear finding that the appellants declared in the classification list/declaration that they were not using the brand name of any othe....