Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Commnr. Of Central Excise, Pune Ii vs M/S. Pethe Brake Motors (P) Ltd. on 1 May, 2015
Bench: A.K. Sikri, Rohinton Fali Nariman
ITEM NO.116 COURT NO.13 SECTION III
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 1417/2005
COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE II Appellant(s)
VERSUS
M/S. PETHE BRAKE MOTORS (P) LTD. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for ex-parte stay and office report)
Date : 01/05/2015 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Appellant(s) Mr. K.Radhakrishnan,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Rupesh Kumar,Adv.
Ms. Rashmi Malhotra,Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. K.V.Gulati,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Ruby Singh Ahuja,adv.
Mr. Ishaan Gaur,Adv.
Mr. Karan Dev Chjopra,Adv.
Mrs Manik Karanjawala,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
(SUMAN WADHWA) (SUMAN JAIN)
AR-cum-PS COURT MASTER
Signed order is placed on the file. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Suman Wadhwa Date: 2015.05.05 11:22:36 IST Reason: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1417 OF 2005 Commnr. Of Central Excise, Pune II Appellant(s) VERSUS M/s. Pethe Brake Motors (P)Ltd. Respondent(s) O R D E R This is not in dispute that the respondent is an SSI unit. However, it was denied exemption from excise duty admissible under Notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 on the ground that it was using branded name of another person and therefore in terms of para 4 of the said Notification it was not entitled to the exemption.
However, we find that finding of fact is recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment that the respondent assessee was not using the branded name of another person and the name used was the surname of the Director of the assesse, viz., `PETHE'. This finding of fact which clearly means that the case does not fall within the mischief of para 4 of the aforesaid Notification No.1/93.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
….....................J. (A.K.SIKRI) …......................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) New Delhi;
Date: 1.5.2015.