TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE v. Rukmani Pakkwell (2004 (2) TMI 69 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of SSI Notification. - As the appellant itself claiming the benefit of Notification No. 9/98-C.E. in the declaration filed in the year 2000. We find that the Revenue denied the SSI notification on the gro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cise Act, 1944. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of PVC pipes falling under Chapter Heading 39 of the Central Excise Tariff. Appellants were availing small scale exemption under Notification No. 9/1998-C.E., dated 2-6-1998. Revenue officers visited the factory premises of the appellant and it was found that appellants were clearing the goods with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . came into force and earlier Notification was rescinded. Hence the demand after 1-4-1999 by denying Notification No. 9/98-C.E. is not sustainable. 5. On merits, the contention is that the appellants were clearing the goods under the brand name of Kothari Pipes. The contention is that the appellants were clearing the goods under different brand name. Hence the benefit of Notification cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dmitted facts of the case are that the brand name (Kothari) is registered in the name of M/s. Kothari Industries under the Patents and Trademarks Act. The appellants were manufacturing and clearing the goods under the brand name of M/s. Kothari Industries. This fact is admitted by Mr. Amol Palia who is a partner in the appellant s firm as well as a partner of M/s. Kothari Industries. As the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
