TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra and has been decided by various authorities - Reliance can be placed in the case of M/S. RAMANI HOTELS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI-V [ 2022 (9) TMI 1055 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that The show cause notice itself makes an averment that the appellants operate under the name and style of Ramee Guestline Hotel and have cleared the goods with the brand name and logo belonging to Ramee Guestline Hotel. If that is the case, then the appellants were clearing the goods under the brand name and logo held by them - they cannot be hit by clause 3(b) of Notification No.8/2003. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal No. 162 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1944 read with Rule 25(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 upon M/s. Crustum Products Private Limited, Powal. D. The assessee M/s Crustum Products Private Limited, Powal is directed to pay the adjudged amounts forthwith. 2.1 Appellant is manufacturer of cakes and pastries falling under Chapter 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 2.2 Based on intelligence that the appellant was subsidiary company of M/s. Viceroy Hotel Ltd., Hyderabad and functioning as an all India franchise for Singapore based company M/s. Bread Talk (P) Ltd. and they were manufacturing bakery products and clearing the same under the brand name of Bread Talk from their business outlet without payment of central excise duty. The c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods cleared from their Powai outlet. IV. The amount of Rs 22,524/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand five hundred twenty four only) deposited by M/s. Crustum Products Private Limited as detailed in Annexure B to this show cause notice should not appropriated against the demand stated above. 2.5 This show cause notice was adjudicated as per order-in-original referred in para 1 above and the appeal against the said order has been dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as per the impugned order. 2.6 Appellant has filed an email dated 14.12.2022 forwarding a written synopsis and has asked for a decision on merits. 3.1 We have heard the learned Authorised Representative who reiterates the findings recorded in the impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
