TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (2) TMI 191
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 was that in Notification No. 1/93, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. 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 ruling rendered in the case of Khanna ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Shyamala Pipes and Fittings were ....