https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239961 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled that the appellant failed to prove ownership of the brand name due to insufficient evidence. The tribunal noted confusion in the use of multiple brand names and directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 30,00,000/- within four weeks to safeguard the Revenue's interests. Emphasizing compliance with legal precedents, the tribunal stressed the importance of meeting the pre-deposit deadline for procedural fairness. The judgment aimed to clarify brand ownership, address naming confusion, and ensure adherence to legal standards in the adjudication process. en-us Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Apr 2014 16:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239961 The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled that the appellant failed to prove ownership of the brand name due to insufficient evidence. The tribunal noted confusion in the use of multiple brand names and directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 30,00,000/- within four weeks to safeguard the Revenue's interests. Emphasizing compliance with legal precedents, the tribunal stressed the importance of meeting the pre-deposit deadline for procedural fairness. The judgment aimed to clarify brand ownership, address naming confusion, and ensure adherence to legal standards in the adjudication process. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 20 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=239961