https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202360 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision in an appeal concerning eligibility for SSI exemption under the Central Excise Act, 1944, related to the ownership of the brand name 'SARCAST.' The Revenue failed to prove ownership, relying on a single statement and contractual clauses. The Tribunal emphasized the burden of proof on the Revenue, requiring thorough investigations and concrete evidence to establish ownership. The judgment highlighted the significance of recorded statements under the Act and the necessity for proper discharge of onus by the Revenue in cases of disputed brand names. en-us Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 19 Feb 2011 11:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202360 The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision in an appeal concerning eligibility for SSI exemption under the Central Excise Act, 1944, related to the ownership of the brand name 'SARCAST.' The Revenue failed to prove ownership, relying on a single statement and contractual clauses. The Tribunal emphasized the burden of proof on the Revenue, requiring thorough investigations and concrete evidence to establish ownership. The judgment highlighted the significance of recorded statements under the Act and the necessity for proper discharge of onus by the Revenue in cases of disputed brand names. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 03 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202360