https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339283 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision that "Calfix Grade-A-Technical" was not the respondent company's brand name, allowing them to claim SSI exemption. The Revenue failed to prove that "Calfix Grade-A" was the company's brand, and the evidence presented was insufficient to establish exceeding the exemption limit. Consequently, the demand for duty and interest was deemed unjustified, and the respondents were entitled to consequential benefits under the law. en-us Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Mar 2017 09:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339283 The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision that "Calfix Grade-A-Technical" was not the respondent company's brand name, allowing them to claim SSI exemption. The Revenue failed to prove that "Calfix Grade-A" was the company's brand, and the evidence presented was insufficient to establish exceeding the exemption limit. Consequently, the demand for duty and interest was deemed unjustified, and the respondents were entitled to consequential benefits under the law. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 13 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339283