https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354473 SSI exemption could not be denied on the ground of another person's brand name where an assignment deed showed the brand had been assigned to the assessee; the mere absence of registration did not alter that position, and the exemption denial was unsustainable. A demand for clandestine removal based on parallel invoices also failed because the Revenue produced no positive or corroborative evidence of diversion or actual clandestine clearance, while the assessee's explanation of provisional supplies and later monthly reconciliation remained unrebutted. The connected confiscation, penalty and redemption fine also fell with the main demand, and the extended period was held unavailable in view of prior notice on the same issue. en-us Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Mar 2018 17:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354473 SSI exemption could not be denied on the ground of another person's brand name where an assignment deed showed the brand had been assigned to the assessee; the mere absence of registration did not alter that position, and the exemption denial was unsustainable. A demand for clandestine removal based on parallel invoices also failed because the Revenue produced no positive or corroborative evidence of diversion or actual clandestine clearance, while the assessee's explanation of provisional supplies and later monthly reconciliation remained unrebutted. The connected confiscation, penalty and redemption fine also fell with the main demand, and the extended period was held unavailable in view of prior notice on the same issue. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354473