2005 (7) TMI 483

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... None, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)]. - In this appeal the Revenue has contested the correctness of the impugned order-in-appeal vide which the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the duty demand and set aside the confiscation of the unaccounted goods. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. No request for adjournment has also been received from them, th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... adjudicating authority by observing that the use of logo/House Mark of M/s. Prem (another person) on the goods could not disentitle the respondents from SSI exemption as they were using their brand name also. But the view taken up by him cannot be accepted being contrary to the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of CCE, Trichy v Grasim Industries Ltd. reported in 2005 (183) E.L.....