https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115015 Duty-paid returned defective goods under Rule 173H were liable to confiscation and duty demand where the assessee failed to establish that the seized water filters were the same returned goods, retained them beyond the permitted period, and lacked the required intimation and authorisation. Small scale exemption was available where the brand name used was already held to belong to the assessee in its own earlier case, and no contrary final determination displaced that view. The article notes that the assessee failed on the confiscation and duty issue but succeeded on the exemption issue, reflecting the operative effect of proper accounting for returned goods and ownership of brand name in exemption claims. en-us Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 May 2012 10:22:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115015 Duty-paid returned defective goods under Rule 173H were liable to confiscation and duty demand where the assessee failed to establish that the seized water filters were the same returned goods, retained them beyond the permitted period, and lacked the required intimation and authorisation. Small scale exemption was available where the brand name used was already held to belong to the assessee in its own earlier case, and no contrary final determination displaced that view. The article notes that the assessee failed on the confiscation and duty issue but succeeded on the exemption issue, reflecting the operative effect of proper accounting for returned goods and ownership of brand name in exemption claims. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115015