https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180741 Use of another concern's brand name on manufactured goods disqualified the unit from small scale industry exemption, and the clearances were therefore liable to duty. The record, including declarations, invoices and statements, showed that the appellant was a manufacturing unit and that the brand name belonged to another unit with permission for use; suppression of this fact also justified the extended limitation period. Denial of cross-examination and other procedural objections did not upset the demand or penalties because the relied-upon statements were consistent, unretracted, and the objections did not go to the core findings on manufacture and brand-name use. The duty demand and penalties were sustained. en-us Tue, 23 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Apr 2016 11:01:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180741 Use of another concern's brand name on manufactured goods disqualified the unit from small scale industry exemption, and the clearances were therefore liable to duty. The record, including declarations, invoices and statements, showed that the appellant was a manufacturing unit and that the brand name belonged to another unit with permission for use; suppression of this fact also justified the extended limitation period. Denial of cross-examination and other procedural objections did not upset the demand or penalties because the relied-upon statements were consistent, unretracted, and the objections did not go to the core findings on manufacture and brand-name use. The duty demand and penalties were sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180741