https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76089 Mere use of another's brand name on letterheads and invoices was held insufficient to establish clearance of goods under that brand name. The record showed only that third-party brand names appeared on documents, but there was no supporting evidence that the goods themselves were cleared with those marks. As the Revenue failed to dislodge the lower appellate authority's factual finding, suspicion based on invoicing and letterhead usage could not sustain the allegation. The finding that the goods were not cleared under third-party brand names was upheld, and the duty demand and penalties were not sustained. en-us Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76089 Mere use of another's brand name on letterheads and invoices was held insufficient to establish clearance of goods under that brand name. The record showed only that third-party brand names appeared on documents, but there was no supporting evidence that the goods themselves were cleared with those marks. As the Revenue failed to dislodge the lower appellate authority's factual finding, suspicion based on invoicing and letterhead usage could not sustain the allegation. The finding that the goods were not cleared under third-party brand names was upheld, and the duty demand and penalties were not sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76089