2012 (8) TMI 903

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Dewalvar, Additional Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order where the demand of Rs. 4,83,288/- was confirmed with interest and penalty of equal amount imposed under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PVC pi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mmissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal. 4. The contention of the appellant is that the demand is confirmed after denying the benefit of Notification No. 9/98-C.E. for the period March, 1999 to July, 1999. With effect from 1-4-1999 Notification No. 9/99-C.E. came into force and earlier Notification was rescinded. Hence the demand after 1-4-1999 by denying Notifi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders reported in 2004 (165) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) to submit that even a part of brand name of another person indicating the connection in the course of trade would be sufficient to deny the benefit of SSI notification. 7. We find that the admitted facts of the case are that the brand name (Kothari) is registered in the name of M/s. Koth....