https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360846 SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. could not be denied merely because the assessee used the name "Rastogi", since the department failed to prove that it was a brand name belonging to another person. The Tribunal noted that the seized goods, panchnama and invoices did not show any brand name on the goods, and the reliance on connected persons' statements was insufficient to establish third-party brand ownership. A family surname, without proof of ownership as a brand by another person, does not by itself disqualify an assessee from exemption. The duty demand based on alleged use of the "Rastogi" brand name was therefore unsustainable and the exemption benefit was upheld. en-us Tue, 22 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 May 2018 07:06:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360846 SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. could not be denied merely because the assessee used the name "Rastogi", since the department failed to prove that it was a brand name belonging to another person. The Tribunal noted that the seized goods, panchnama and invoices did not show any brand name on the goods, and the reliance on connected persons' statements was insufficient to establish third-party brand ownership. A family surname, without proof of ownership as a brand by another person, does not by itself disqualify an assessee from exemption. The duty demand based on alleged use of the "Rastogi" brand name was therefore unsustainable and the exemption benefit was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=360846