2017 (10) TMI 1107

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CHANDRA : The present appeal is filed by the assessee-Appellants against the Order-in-Appeal No. 18-20/CE/DLH/2015 dated 04.03.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Delhi. The period in dispute is 2009-10 to 2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, during the period under consideration, the assessee-Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of different types of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. With this background, we have heard Shri Somesh Arora, learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants and Shri M.R. Sharma, learned DR for the Revenue. 4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee-Appellants that the brand names were owned by the wife of Shri Mahesh Chand Goyal, Karta of the family and Shri Sundeep Kumar Goyal. This was a family settlement. The brand names di....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e two units was not clubbed, SSI Exemption was rightly denied. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. From the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs Anil Pumps (P) Ltd. (supra) as well as by the Hon'ble High Court in the case of CCE vs Minimax Industries, 2011 (269) ELT 166 (Del), it is evident that the brand name can be utilized by the fam....