TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 525
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Appellant. Shri G. Shiv Das, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice K.K. Usha, President]. - In these appeals at the instance of Revenue common issue coming up for consideration is whether the respondent-assessee is entitled to the concessional rate of duty on the basis of SSI exemption under Notification Nos. 16/97, 8/98 and 8/99. According to the Revenue, the assessee M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed penalty. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) took the view that the monogram/symbol "(S)" is only a house mark for identification of the manufacturer. He also took the view that the symbol/monogram "(S)" is followed by the name of particular unit of the Sanghi Group, namely, "(S)" Sanghi Threads Pvt. Ltd. "(S)", Sanghi Polyester Ltd. etc. and therefore, totality of the emblem shall be taken i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5) E.L.T. 69. The Commissioner (Appeals), therefore, held that the benefit under different SSI Notifications is not deniable to the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. In this appeal before us, the Revenue contended that any product with reference to monogram "(S)" is clearly identified in the market as a product of Sanghi Group of Industries. Therefore, the assessee by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntended before us by the Revenue that the respondent is manufacturing the same item of product as in the case of other units of Sanghi Group. If that be so, the ratio of the decision of Larger Bench in CCE, Chandigarh v. Fine Industries - 2002 (146) E.L.T. 53 (Tri.-LB) would apply in favour of the assessee. The decision relied on by the Revenue has been overruled by the Larger Bench. In Astra Phar....