2013 (2) TMI 466

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (A.R.) as none appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of notice. 2. Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of aluminum utensils falling under Chapter 76 of the Tariff under a brand name "NIRLEP". The case of the Revenue is that the brand name of "....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. We find that the issue is now settled by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rukmani Pakkwell Traders reported in 2004 (165) ELT 481 (SC) and in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Mahaan Dairies reported in 2004 (166) ELT 23 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it does not make any difference whether the goods on which the trade name is used are t....