TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (4) TMI 988
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t : Mr. V. Sreedharan, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Jus Sanghavi & Durgaprasad Poojari i/by PDS Legal For the Respondent : Mr. Y. R. Mishra along with Mr. J.P. Mishra JUDGEMENT At the request of the Counsel these appeals are being disposed of at the stage of admission. 2) These seven appeals filed under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (the Act) challenges a common order dated 9 Apr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vember 2004 the appellant was registered as an SSI unit. The appellant was also availing the benefit of SSI excise notification in respect of Seals manufactured and cleared under the brand name "SEAL JET". 6) As far as back in 1996 the Central Excise Department has raised a query of the appellant whether it was using the brand name of foreign collaborator. The appellant in response by its letter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in first appeal by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). 8) Being aggrieved the appellant had carried all the seven orders of the adjudicating authorities in appeal to the Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 9 April 2013 the Tribunal dismissed the appeals. The grievance of the appellant is that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. The impugned order does not deal with the issu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant. On merits also the impugned order dated 9 April 2013 of the Tribunal does not deal with/consider the submissions of the appellant based on letters dated 16 September 2002 and 26 March 2004 received from foreign collaborator stating that the brand name "Seal Jet" is not their band name. This evidence of the appellant was also not considered in the impugned order dated 9 April 2014 of the T....