9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order per : Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)]. - These are appeals by the Revenue against the Order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Ghaziabad, holding that the respondents herein are entitled to concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1-3-1986 as amen- ded. 2. The brief facts of the case are that responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 1990-91. Show Cause Notices were issued proposing denial of the benefit of the notification and proposing recovery of duty. The Assistant Collector by separate adjudication orders confirmed the demands of duty. appeal, the Collector (Appeals) accepted the contentions of the respondents herein holding that "in the present case after the assignment of trademark, the ownership of trademark in r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H.K. Jain, ld. SDR and Shri Pradeep Jain, ld. Advocate. We find that both the brand name owners, namely, M/s. Har Karan Dass Deep Chand and M/s. Deep Chand Arya Industries were registered SSI units and in fact, the certificates of registration had been produced before the Assistant Collector. Therefore, both the above brand name holders are eligible for SSI exemption under Notification 175/86 bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tment would have to show that the brand name holders are not eligible for the grant of exemption. This, however, is not the case as, the brand name owners have already been found to be eligible for the grant of exemption by virtue of their registration as SSI units by the Directorate of Industries. Therefore, there is no warrant for denying the benefit of concessional rate of duty under this notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
