CEA Nos.5 and 6 of 2004 and 82 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. 1.CEA No.5 of 2004 The Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana. ...Appellant Versus M/s Elex Knitting Machinery Company, Link Road, Industrial Area 'A', Ludhiana. ...Respondent 2.CEA No.6 of 2004 The Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana. ...Appellant Versus M/s Elex Industries, Link Road, Industrial Area 'A', Ludhiana. ...Respondent 3.CEA No.82 of 2005 Commissioner, Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana. ...Appellant Versus M/s Elex International (Regd.), Link Road, Industrial Area 'A', Ludhiana. ...Respondent Date of Decision:- 16.2.2010 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR CEA Nos.5 and 6 of 2004 and 82 of 2005 2 Present: Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant (in CEA No.5 of 2004 and CEA No.82 of 2005). Mr.Sanjeev Kaushik, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant (in CEA No.6 of 2004). Mr.Sumit Jain, Advocate for the respondent. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of aforesaid three appeals as the common question of law and facts are involved in the same. The revenue has filed these appeals challenging the impugned order dated 1.9.2003 (Annexure A3) passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, vide which, the respondent-assessee was granted SSI exemption. The orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority as well as by the Commissioner were set aside by the Appellate Tribunal. In this case, the following substantial question of law was framed for determination at the time of admission of the appeals:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the benefit of SSI exemption is admissible in terms of notification No.1/93-CE dated 28.2.1993 to proprietary concern manufacturing specific excisable goods using the brand name owned by another partnership firm in which proprietor of the assessee is one of the partner.” Learned counsel for the respondent-assessee submits that the aforementioned substantial question of law has been answered in favour of the assessee by a Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Central Excise Appeal No.10 of 2005 filed by Commissioner of Central CEA Nos.5 and 6 of 2004 and 82 of 2005 3 Excise, Kochi, decided on 28.1.2008. It was observed by the Kerala High Court that “since there was common ownership of brand name “summer treat”, therefore, it cannot be said that it was owned by another person.” A perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the Kerala High Court shows that the orders passed in case Elex Knitting Machinery Co. 2003 (158) ELT 499 which is impugned order in this case was upheld and it was held that the assessee is entitled for SSI exemption. In view of the above, we find no merit in these appeals and accordingly, the same are dismissed. (Ashutosh Mohunta) Judge (Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge 16.2.2010 AS