9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i R.V. Ramakrishnappa, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order 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 Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of Rs. 14,36,000/- under Rule 9(2) of the Central 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 Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods manufactured by them subject to the condition that one does 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 Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to M/s. Rump Industries and it belongs to a number of persons. Therefore, the appellant is not debarred from availing the benefit of SSI Exemption 01/1993. Hence, the adjudication order is legal and proper and there is no justification for Revenue's appeal. The O-I-A is also not based on proper appreciation of facts. In view of the above findings, we allow the appeal with consequential relief, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
