2012 (11) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onsultant, for the Respondent. [Order per : D.N. Panda, Member (J)]. -  Revenue is in misconception that branded goods should be clubbed with unbranded goods for the purpose of implementation of mandate of Notification No. 8/02, dated 1-3-2002. The appellate authority below analyzed the contents of the Notification in the appeal order and came to the conclusion that branded goods when diffe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... erefore, show cause notice proves that the appellant was manufacturing two different products of two different values and disclosed in the ER-1 return. On such material facts, ld. Commissioner (Appeal)'s held that branded goods should not be clubbed with unbranded goods to deny SSI exemption to the Respondent under the aforesaid notification. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records. 5.& .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mit. 7. Revenue relies on the decision of Apex Court's in Ramesh Food Products. In that case the controversy before Apex Court was whether two type of branded goods i.e. 'Ramesh' and 'Cadbury' shall enjoy S.S.I., benefit. This is clear from the factual background depicted in the judgment. Therefore, the Hon'ble Court came to the conclusion that when a clear cut distinction is expressed in la .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X