https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90975 Small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. could not be denied merely because the goods bore the brand name "Kalinga". The Revenue failed to prove, by cogent evidence such as a statement or registration certificate, that the brand belonged to another person; a classification list alone was insufficient to establish third-party ownership. On that basis, use of the mark could not be treated as use of another's brand name so as to disentitle the exemption. The duty demand, confiscation, fine and penalty were therefore set aside, and consequential relief followed. en-us Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:44:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90975 Small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. could not be denied merely because the goods bore the brand name "Kalinga". The Revenue failed to prove, by cogent evidence such as a statement or registration certificate, that the brand belonged to another person; a classification list alone was insufficient to establish third-party ownership. On that basis, use of the mark could not be treated as use of another's brand name so as to disentitle the exemption. The duty demand, confiscation, fine and penalty were therefore set aside, and consequential relief followed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90975