2012 (8) TMI 656

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for the Respondent. [Order per : P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (T)]. - Heard both sides. 2. The short issue for consideration in this case is whether indicating the name of the manufacturer on the packaging of the product would amount to affixing a brand name or not for the purpose of eligibility to small scale exemption under Notification No. 9/99-C.E. dated 28-2-1999. In the instant case .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... adjudicating authority adjudicated the case and denied the benefit of aforesaid notification and confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,11,994/-. The appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) vide his order dated 20-6-2006 set aside the order of the lower adjudicating authority and allowed the appeal. The ld. Lower Appellate Authority, following the j .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n of the product with the manufacturer and therefore as per the definition of brand name given in the explanation to the said notification, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of exemption contained therein. 5. We have carefully considered the matter. If the Revenue's plea that indicating the manufacturer's name would amount to affixing brand name is accepted, then all the goods co .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X