https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266294 Jute bags printed with the names, logos or particulars of procurement agencies or buyers were treated as bearing a brand name under Chapter Note (iv) of Chapter 63, so exemption meant for unbranded goods was unavailable. The markings were held to fall within the statutory meaning of brand name even if applied pursuant to regulatory directions. On limitation and penalty, the dispute was one of interpretation and the relevant facts were already known to the department, so invocation of the extended period and penalty were not justified. Duty and interest for the normal period required fresh recomputation, and the matter was remanded for that limited exercise. en-us Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Feb 2018 18:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266294 Jute bags printed with the names, logos or particulars of procurement agencies or buyers were treated as bearing a brand name under Chapter Note (iv) of Chapter 63, so exemption meant for unbranded goods was unavailable. The markings were held to fall within the statutory meaning of brand name even if applied pursuant to regulatory directions. On limitation and penalty, the dispute was one of interpretation and the relevant facts were already known to the department, so invocation of the extended period and penalty were not justified. Duty and interest for the normal period required fresh recomputation, and the matter was remanded for that limited exercise. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=266294