<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (6) TMI 420 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109894</link>
    <description>Goods bearing another person&#039;s brand name are not eligible for small scale industry exemption under the applicable notification. The goods were found to display the brand name &quot;Aries&quot; with the zodiac sign, while &quot;SUPERGRIP&quot; was treated as separately shown and not part of the brand name; exemption was therefore unavailable. Misdeclaration of the brand as &quot;Aries SUPERGRIP&quot; in the declaration filed with the department amounted to suppression of material facts, so the extended period of limitation was invocable. Although the duty demand was sustained, full penalty was not justified and the penalty was substantially reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 16:48:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=146910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (6) TMI 420 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109894</link>
      <description>Goods bearing another person&#039;s brand name are not eligible for small scale industry exemption under the applicable notification. The goods were found to display the brand name &quot;Aries&quot; with the zodiac sign, while &quot;SUPERGRIP&quot; was treated as separately shown and not part of the brand name; exemption was therefore unavailable. Misdeclaration of the brand as &quot;Aries SUPERGRIP&quot; in the declaration filed with the department amounted to suppression of material facts, so the extended period of limitation was invocable. Although the duty demand was sustained, full penalty was not justified and the penalty was substantially reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109894</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>