2011 (4) TMI 431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Per: Mr. B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical)   The appellant is engaged in the manufacture of various goods and was enjoying the benefit of exemption Notification 8/2003 dated 1.3.2003. Appellant was also manufacturing mixer and grinder with brand name VIPANCHI. On the ground that the brand name belongs to Sri Ram Kishan and not to the appellant, an offence case was registered and after inv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... that it was submitted only at the time of personal hearing and not at any stage early.   4. Further, he also submits that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) also required him to deposit the full amount of duty demanded and since appellant could not make the deposit the appeal has been rejected for non-compliance.   5. He submits that in the case of CCE vs. Primella Sanitary Products r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... He seeks waiver of pre-deposit and remand of the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) since the ld. Commissioner has not decided the issue on merits.   6. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that the brand name continued to remain with Sri Ram Kishan only and agreement was only temporary in nature. Further he also relied on other Supreme court decisions to support his submission that mere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r party. However, in the case of the appellant, the MOU is valid for five years and after five years both the parties are at liberty to change which means ownership remains with Sri Ram Kishan and after five years reverts to him if MOU is not renewed. Under these circumstances, whether the issue can be said to be covered by the cited decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has to be examined. As reg....