2019 (3) TMI 946

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... For Respondent: Shri K.J. Kinariwala (AR) ORDER Per: Ramesh Nair the issue involved is that whether the product manufactured by appellant is bearing brand name of another person i.e. 'Sudarshan' and if so whether they are entitled for SSI exemption or otherwise under Notification No. 08/03-CE dated 01.03.2003. 2. Sh. Hardik Modh Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant subm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thorities have not considered the option of 25%. As regard appeal of partner, he submits that since the demand and penalty was confirmed against the partnership firm, the separate penalty on partnership firm should not be imposed. 3. Sh. K.J. Kinariwala, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. Considering the submis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....me Court judgment in case of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC), whenever demand is confirmed, the cum duty should be extended to the assessee, accordingly, we hold that appellant is entitled for the cum duty benefit. As regard penalty under section 11 AC, since both the lower authorities have not considered the option of 25% penalty as provided under proviso to Section 11AC and the same c....