TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rejects Department's appeal in brand name case, stresses importance of evidence</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Versus KUBER INDUSTRIES</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE Versus KUBER INDUSTRIES - 2010 (249) E.L.T. 78 (Tri. - Del.) The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, comprising of Justice R.M.S. Khandeparkar, President, and Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T), heard two appeals from the Department arising from the same impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The respondents, engaged in manufacturing ginning machines and spares, were accused by the Department of clearing machines with a third party brand name. The original authority confirmed a demand of Rs.4,46,706/- along with interest and imposed penalties. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, stating that affixing a brand name on letterheads and invoices did not constitute clearing goods with a third party brand. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting the lack of evidence presented by the Revenue to support their claims. Therefore, the appeals of the Department were rejected. This case highlights the importance of providing substantial evidence to support allegations in legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 