https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345370 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the duty demand, interest, and penalties imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The denial of the SSI exemption was deemed unjustified as multiple manufacturers, including the appellants, used the brand name "Extus." The department failed to prove that the brand names "Colter," "Bezec," and "Fecit C" did not belong to the appellants, leading to the Tribunal allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief as per the law. en-us Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Aug 2017 11:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345370 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the duty demand, interest, and penalties imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The denial of the SSI exemption was deemed unjustified as multiple manufacturers, including the appellants, used the brand name "Extus." The department failed to prove that the brand names "Colter," "Bezec," and "Fecit C" did not belong to the appellants, leading to the Tribunal allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief as per the law. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 13 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345370