https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270047 The appellate tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, confirming the respondents' eligibility for the benefit of small scale under Notification No. 8/2002. It was established that the machines did not bear the brand name "SAMS" as alleged, but rather displayed the manufacturer's name, Sams Techno Mech or Sams Tool Machine. Relying on legal precedents, including a Supreme Court case, the tribunal emphasized that the use of another person's brand name would disqualify an entity from the exemption. The tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, affirming the respondents' entitlement to the exemption. en-us Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Feb 2017 11:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270047 The appellate tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, confirming the respondents' eligibility for the benefit of small scale under Notification No. 8/2002. It was established that the machines did not bear the brand name "SAMS" as alleged, but rather displayed the manufacturer's name, Sams Techno Mech or Sams Tool Machine. Relying on legal precedents, including a Supreme Court case, the tribunal emphasized that the use of another person's brand name would disqualify an entity from the exemption. The tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeals, affirming the respondents' entitlement to the exemption. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 02 Nov 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=270047