TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 749
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l No.E/00904/2000/MAS, with the direction to hear both sides and pass suitable order on merit. 2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the respondent is engaged in the manufacture of Textile finishing agents & Soap Oil Viz. Pon Soft, Ponwet, Catal-in etc. classifiable under Heading No.38.09 and 3402.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The respondent availed benefit of SSI Exemption Notification No.1/93-CE, dated 28.02.1993. The Central Excise officers during the visit of the respondent s factory verification found that the respondent used the emblem of a man riding on a horse with a word CHEMPON , which is printed on the invoices and also in the containers. It is alleged that the said logo is owned by M/s. Chempon Alloys....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Trichy Vs Rukmani Pakkwell Traders reported in 2004 (165) E.L.T.481 (S.C.), allowed the appeal of the Revenue on an identical issue. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- "6. The Tribunal then proceeds on the basis that the exemption can be denied only if trade mark or brand name is used in respect of the same goods for which the trade mark is registered. In coming to this conclusion we are afraid that the Tribunal has done something which is not permissible to be done in law. It is settled law that Exemption Notifications have to be strictly construed. They must be interpreted on their own wording. Wordings of some other Notification are of no benefit in construing a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at they pleaded before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the demand is barred by limitation. The learned Counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the relevant grounds of appeal on limitation before the Commissioner (Appeals). We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) had decided the matter on merit without considering the limitation aspect. It is noticed that the Adjudicating authority also did not consider the submissions of the respondent as demand is barred by limitation. 5. The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue relied upon the following decisions of the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal on the limitation aspect as under:- (i) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. reported i....