2005 (2) TMI 191

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r (J)]. - This appeal arises from OIA No. 401/2002 dated 28-6-2002 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the departmental appeal and setting aside the OIO passed by DC, Belgaum. The DC had held that the goods manufactured and cleared were not branded goods inasmuch as they were "not consumer goods that market is depended on the name"(sic). The Revenue's contention before the Commissioner w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ible for the benefit of the Notification. He has not examined any other point except to personally hold that affixing the name of the company amounts to using the brand name. This has been seriously challenged by the appellants. The appellants contend that the Revenue has not discharged its burden to show that the assessee had used the brand name of another person. In this case, they rely on the r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld not dis-entitle the appellant from enjoying the benefit of Notification. He also relied on the judgment of LMS Tool Room v. CCE, Rajkot - 2002 (139) E.L.T. 199 (Tri.) = 2001 (46) RLT 737 (CEGAT-Del.) wherein it has been held that the burden of proof is on the department to prove that the appellants are using the brand name of another person who is not eligible to SSI benefit. He submits that&nb....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Shyamala' is a brand name and not a company's name. It is the contention of the appellant that Shyamala Pipes and Fittings are eligible for the benefit of SSI exemption and the appellants having used their company's name would not dis-entitle the benefit of the Notification. The arguments and the contentions raised by the appellants are terms of the citations referred to by them. Shyamala is not a....