TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 428X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of fact, all the three authorities have held that the 2nd respondent/assessee is entitled to the benefit of Notification 06/02 dated 1.3.02. In the light of such a concurrent finding, this Court is of the considered view that said concurrent finding of fact does not need to be interfered with, as there is no error or infirmity in the finding arrived at by the lower authorities. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the appeal as there is no question of law that arise for consideration. - Decided against Revenue. - C.M.A. NO. 3456 OF 2010 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2015 - MR. R.SUDHAKAR AND MR. R.KARUPPIAH, JJ. For the Respondent : Mr. V.Balasubramanian JUDGMENT (DELIVERED BY R.SUDHAKAR, J.) Aggrieved by the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or better clarity, the relevant portion of the order is set out hereunder :- 2. In the present appeal, the Revenue has relied on the Apex Court's judgment in Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy - Vs - Rukmani Pakkwell Traders - 2004-TIOL-51-SC-CX. In addition, the learned Jt. CDR has relied on Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy - Vs - Grasim Industries Ltd. - 2005 (183) ELT 123 (SC). The cited decisions were on what could constitute a 'brand name' or 'trade name' for purposes of SSI exemption notifications. It is pointed out by the learned Jt. CDR that the definition of 'brand name' given at Sl. No.244 in the Table annexed to Notification No.6/2002-CE ibid is materially the same as the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation to the arguments of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and also perused the orders passed by the lower authorities as also the documents enclosed in the typed set of papers. 5. It is evident from the record that all the three authorities have uniformly taken the view that the goods cleared by the 2nd respondent/assessee bear a superscription manufactured and packed by S.V.S. Sons , which is not a brand name or trade name. There is a clear distinction between the brand name used and the superscription as found in the packaging. On this finding of fact, all the three authorities have held that the 2nd respondent/assessee is entitled to the benefit of Notification 06/02 dated 1.3.02. In the light of such a concurrent findin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
