https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86279 Small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where goods were cleared under another person's brand name, because the brand remained with M/s. Micro Labs Ltd., no royalty was shown, and the use was not disclosed in the exemption claim; the exemption was therefore denied for the period before 26-9-1991. The duty demand for clearances after 26-9-1991 was barred by limitation because departmental officers had visited the unit on that date and acquired knowledge of the brand-name use, so subsequent demands had to be issued within six months. The penalty was upheld as not excessive in view of the undisclosed use of the brand name. en-us Wed, 06 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:52:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86279 Small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where goods were cleared under another person's brand name, because the brand remained with M/s. Micro Labs Ltd., no royalty was shown, and the use was not disclosed in the exemption claim; the exemption was therefore denied for the period before 26-9-1991. The duty demand for clearances after 26-9-1991 was barred by limitation because departmental officers had visited the unit on that date and acquired knowledge of the brand-name use, so subsequent demands had to be issued within six months. The penalty was upheld as not excessive in view of the undisclosed use of the brand name. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=86279