2006 (2) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Therefore, the appeal is being taken up in the absence of the appellants. 2. The appellants filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the demand is confirmed by denying the benefit of small scale exemption notification on the ground that the appellants were manufacturing and clearing the goods under the brand name of other manufacturer. 3. The con....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ite is now settled by the authority under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. In these circumstances, the contention in that appeal memo is that the demand is not sustainable. 4. The learned SDR appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders; 2004 (165) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f M/s. Surya Foods & Agro (P) Ltd. In this situation, it is clear that the appellants were manufacturing and clearing the goods under the brand name of another manufacturer. Therefore, the' appellants are not entitled for the benefit of small scale exemption notification. In respect of the suppression, we find that the appellants filed a declaration, but in the declaration they simply mentioned th....