2015 (1) TMI 1319

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri Mayank Garg, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Yashpal Sharma, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : P.K. Das, Member (J)]. - These appeals are arising out of a common order and therefore, both are taken up together for disposal. 2. The Adjudicating Authority denied the benefit of SSI exemption notification on the ground that the appellant used....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... semi-finished nature and not marketable. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Indian Cable Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Ex., Calcutta - 1994 (74) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.). 4. On the other hand, the ld. Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He submits that admittedly the appellant used the brand ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng the brand name of another person. The brand name "ELEX", according to the Department belonged to M/s. Elex Engineering Works. But Shri Pritam Singh who is the proprietor of the appellant's firm, is one of the partners in that firm. Being co-owner of the brand name in the above said firm, he could not be said to had used the brand name of another person, in the manufacture and clearance of the g....