https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203898 Penalty enhancement was rejected where goods were manufactured under another person's registered brand name while claiming small scale industry exemption, because there was no evidence that the respondent knew the brand belonged to someone else or deliberately claimed the exemption despite such knowledge. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on Tribunal decisions taking a similar view, and in the absence of proof of knowledge or intention, interference with the reduced penalty was not justified. The order reducing the penalty was therefore upheld. en-us Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 May 2011 12:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203898 Penalty enhancement was rejected where goods were manufactured under another person's registered brand name while claiming small scale industry exemption, because there was no evidence that the respondent knew the brand belonged to someone else or deliberately claimed the exemption despite such knowledge. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on Tribunal decisions taking a similar view, and in the absence of proof of knowledge or intention, interference with the reduced penalty was not justified. The order reducing the penalty was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 01 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203898