2013 (11) TMI 1419

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said pumps were being manufactured by the appellants in a brand name 'Prince'. Investigation conducted by the Revenue reveal that said brand name 'Prince' was registered under the name of M/s. Kalsi Metals Works for the same Centrifugal pumps and stands transferred by them to M/s. Kalsi Engineers. By entertaining a view that inasmuch as the appellant has used the brand name of other persons, they were not entitled to benefit of small scale exemption and benefit in terms of notification No. 8/01-CE dated 1.3.2001, proceedings were initiated against the appellant by way of issuance of show cause notice dated 10.3.03. raising demand for the period of 1.3.2002 to 12.9.2002. Said proceedings resulted in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s reported as [2004 (173) ELT 225 (SC)]. He also refers to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Vetcare Organics P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore [2004 (174) ELT 337 (Tri-Bang)]. 4. Learned DR appearing for the Revenue submits that in the absence of any dispute to the effect that the appellant was using the somebody else brand name, legal issue of non-availability of notification No. 8/2001-CE does not call for any dispute. As regards the raising and confirmation of demand, she submits that the same stands raised within the period of limitation provided under section 11A of the Central Excise Act. As such, the appellants contention that there was no intention on their part to use the brand name belonging to other manufacturers cannot come to....