2007 (6) TMI 349

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... against the assessee (one of the appellants) a demand of duty to the extent of over Rs. 39 lakhs for the period 1998-2002 and also imposed on them equal amount of penalty. The authority also imposed a penalty on the Managing Director of the company (the other appellant). Against that decision, the appellants preferred appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals), who  directed the assessee and the Managing Director to predeposit Rs. 39,08,290/- and Rs. 4 lakhs respectively for the purpose of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. 3. The subsequent modification petition filed by the appellants was rejected by the appellate authority. Having found no evidence of pre-deposit, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeals for want of co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mption would not be available to those goods manufactured and cleared by SSI units which were affixed with brand-name belonging to another person. Before the original authority, the assessee submitted that they had already obtained registration with the Registering Authority under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in respect of some of the brand-names in question and that, in respect of some other brand-names, their application for such registration was pending before the said authority. It was, further, submitted that it was only after 2002 that they re-assigned some of the brand-names to the original owners. Apparently, these submissions did not appeal to the authority, which held against the assessee on all counts. Before the appellate authority....