2017 (10) TMI 696

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ndarajan, DR for the respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan The appeal is against the order-in-Appeal No.31/2007 dated 30.04.2007. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of cosmetics falling under Chapter 3304 and Brilliantine Hair Care (Hair Cream) falling under chapter 3305 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 respectively. During the period fr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ocess of law the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai I Division dropped further proceedings vide impugned order-in-original. 3. Revenue challenged the order-in-original resulting in the impugned order in which the demand was sustained. Aggrieved by the impugned order present appeal has been filed. 4. With the background, we have heard Shri M. Kannan, Advocate for the appellant ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....6 (Tri-Chennai). 6. Since, the above decision has been accepted by the Revenue the benefit of the same will be available to the appellant. Relying on the above decision of the Tribunal, the original authority dropped the demand for the duty and allowed the SSI benefit. 7. The Ld. DR supported the impugned order. 8. After hearing both the sides and perusal of the records, we note that orig....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... earlier belonged was dissolved and subsequently it was used by the members of the family firm and later (before the issue of show cause notice) the brand name was registered in favour of the present respondent. This position is not disputed before us. Therefore we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) particularly in the light of the Tribunal's judgm....