https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94849 A duty demand on pressure-cooker parts cleared under another concern's brand name was held unsustainable for the period before 10-6-1989 because the retracted partner statements were not backed by reliable independent evidence and contemporaneous correspondence showed branding was required only prospectively; the demand also had to account for duty already paid for June 1989 to October 1989. Confiscation of seized stock was sustained because the goods were unaccounted and the record showed procedural contraventions relating to licence, classification, price lists, statutory records and returns. The penalty was upheld in principle but reduced on the facts. en-us Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:37:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94849 A duty demand on pressure-cooker parts cleared under another concern's brand name was held unsustainable for the period before 10-6-1989 because the retracted partner statements were not backed by reliable independent evidence and contemporaneous correspondence showed branding was required only prospectively; the demand also had to account for duty already paid for June 1989 to October 1989. Confiscation of seized stock was sustained because the goods were unaccounted and the record showed procedural contraventions relating to licence, classification, price lists, statutory records and returns. The penalty was upheld in principle but reduced on the facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94849