https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3272 Declarations and classification lists claiming small scale industry benefit, together with a bona fide belief that the inscription "technical collaboration with Sonnenflex Schleifmittelwerk, West Germany" was not a brand name, meant the extended limitation period and penalty were not available in the absence of fraud, suppression, or intent to evade duty. The demand for the period within limitation was left open for quantification. In the connected appeals, the demand and penalties were unsustainable because the inscription had been deleted from the labels and the revenue produced no contrary evidence of continued use. Relief was granted on limitation and on merits, with only the time-barred demand excluded from recovery. en-us Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3272 Declarations and classification lists claiming small scale industry benefit, together with a bona fide belief that the inscription "technical collaboration with Sonnenflex Schleifmittelwerk, West Germany" was not a brand name, meant the extended limitation period and penalty were not available in the absence of fraud, suppression, or intent to evade duty. The demand for the period within limitation was left open for quantification. In the connected appeals, the demand and penalties were unsustainable because the inscription had been deleted from the labels and the revenue produced no contrary evidence of continued use. Relief was granted on limitation and on merits, with only the time-barred demand excluded from recovery. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3272