https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114725 The Tribunal set aside the duty demand and penalties imposed on both appellants as the Revenue failed to prove that they affixed another person's brand name on the goods manufactured by them. The Commissioner (Appeals) found flaws in the confiscation of goods and upheld the duty demand and penalty against Appellant No. 1 but set aside the confiscation for Appellant No. 2. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of substantial evidence beyond statements and machinery details to support the allegations, leading to the allowance of both appeals due to insufficient proof of branding infringement. en-us Thu, 01 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 May 2012 13:29:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114725 The Tribunal set aside the duty demand and penalties imposed on both appellants as the Revenue failed to prove that they affixed another person's brand name on the goods manufactured by them. The Commissioner (Appeals) found flaws in the confiscation of goods and upheld the duty demand and penalty against Appellant No. 1 but set aside the confiscation for Appellant No. 2. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of substantial evidence beyond statements and machinery details to support the allegations, leading to the allowance of both appeals due to insufficient proof of branding infringement. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114725