https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236700 The appeal challenging the denial of cross-examination of witnesses and disputing the determination of TECON as a brand name was dismissed. The appellant's claims regarding the historical usage of TECON before TECHDRIVE ENGINEERING and the lack of financial transactions with the brand owner were also rejected. Additionally, the argument of a time-barred demand was dismissed, with the court emphasizing compliance with excise rules for SSI units. The decision upheld the duty demand, interest, and penalty, remanding the matter for cum duty realization calculations. en-us Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Sep 2013 16:06:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236700 The appeal challenging the denial of cross-examination of witnesses and disputing the determination of TECON as a brand name was dismissed. The appellant's claims regarding the historical usage of TECON before TECHDRIVE ENGINEERING and the lack of financial transactions with the brand owner were also rejected. Additionally, the argument of a time-barred demand was dismissed, with the court emphasizing compliance with excise rules for SSI units. The decision upheld the duty demand, interest, and penalty, remanding the matter for cum duty realization calculations. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 Dec 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236700