2004 (3) TMI 580

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rder per : S.S. Kang, Member (J)]. Heard both sides. 2. Appellants filed this appeal challenging the imposition of duty of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 3. Brief facts of the case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Magnetic Mattresses and filed a declaration for availing the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification. On verification, it was found that appellants were manufactur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... hennai, reported in 2003 (156) E.L.T. 995 (T) = 2003 (55) RLT 816 (CEGAT-Chen.). 5. The contention of the Revenue is that the appellants filed the declaration for availing the benefit of exemption notification without disclosing the fact that they were manufacturing the goods with the Brand name of the other manufacturer. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Elepha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X