TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T)]. This is an appeal filed by M/s. Lakshmi Plastics Ltd. against O-I-A No. 3/2002, dated 20-5-2002 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad. 2. The Revenue initiated proceedings against the appellant viz. M/s. Lakshmi Plastics Ltd. for availing of the benefit of Notification No. 01/1993 dated 28-2-1993 inspite of the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise Rules, 1944 read with proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant under Rules 173Q and 226. A Redemption Fine of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed after confiscating the plant, building, land and machinery. The appellant is aggrieved over the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and has come before this Tribunal to set as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not manufacture the goods which are manufactured by any one of the others. He also relied on the Board s Circular No. 213/41/88-CX. VI, dated 30-12-1988. Under these circumstances, it is not correct to say that the Brand name KUMAR is owned by M/s. Rump Industries. 5. The learned JDR contended that the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are correct and when the department is the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
