https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171363 SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. could not be denied merely on the basis of a proprietor's retracted statement that the goods bore another person's brand name. In the absence of independent oral or documentary corroboration, the retracted statement did not constitute substantive evidence to prove misuse of a third party's brand. Buyer certificates stated that the machines supplied did not bear the alleged brand name, and the authorities did not disprove those certificates or examine any buyer. On that material, the duty demand and penalties could not be sustained. en-us Mon, 01 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Jul 2024 12:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171363 SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. could not be denied merely on the basis of a proprietor's retracted statement that the goods bore another person's brand name. In the absence of independent oral or documentary corroboration, the retracted statement did not constitute substantive evidence to prove misuse of a third party's brand. Buyer certificates stated that the machines supplied did not bear the alleged brand name, and the authorities did not disprove those certificates or examine any buyer. On that material, the duty demand and penalties could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 01 Sep 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171363