https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372080 SSI exemption could not be denied on the basis of "SEN & PANDIT" because the mark did not function as a brand name indicating trade connection with the sister concern; it was only the first part of the manufacturer's own name, placed inconspicuously on labels, and exclusive ownership by the sister concern was not proved merely by pending trade mark applications. The activities at the Lake View Road premises also were not shown by positive, corroborated evidence to amount to manufacture; investigation statements alone were insufficient to establish transformation of goods into a new marketable product. The duty demand, penalties and denial of exemption were therefore unsustainable, and the appeals succeeded. en-us Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:26:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372080 SSI exemption could not be denied on the basis of "SEN & PANDIT" because the mark did not function as a brand name indicating trade connection with the sister concern; it was only the first part of the manufacturer's own name, placed inconspicuously on labels, and exclusive ownership by the sister concern was not proved merely by pending trade mark applications. The activities at the Lake View Road premises also were not shown by positive, corroborated evidence to amount to manufacture; investigation statements alone were insufficient to establish transformation of goods into a new marketable product. The duty demand, penalties and denial of exemption were therefore unsustainable, and the appeals succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372080