https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214272 The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the demand confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for one year but delete the demand under the extended period of limitation. It ruled in favor of the assessee, finding no suppression of facts or willful misstatement, leading to the deletion of the penalty under Section 11AC. The Court emphasized that the inscription on goods did not constitute brand name usage, supporting the assessee's eligibility for small scale exemptions. The appeal was dismissed, highlighting the importance of good faith actions and legal interpretations in determining liability under the Act. en-us Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Feb 2017 18:25:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214272 The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the demand confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, for one year but delete the demand under the extended period of limitation. It ruled in favor of the assessee, finding no suppression of facts or willful misstatement, leading to the deletion of the penalty under Section 11AC. The Court emphasized that the inscription on goods did not constitute brand name usage, supporting the assessee's eligibility for small scale exemptions. The appeal was dismissed, highlighting the importance of good faith actions and legal interpretations in determining liability under the Act. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 15 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214272