https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373938 The case involved the confiscation of seized goods, imposition of penalties, and demand for Central Excise Duty confirmed by the Adjudication Order. The Appeals were rejected, denying SSI Exemption on PVC soles and granules due to brand ownership issues. The legal battle focused on proving brand ownership and its impact on SSI Exemption eligibility. The authorities' misinterpretation of statements led to benefit denial under Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. Ultimately, discrepancies in evidence led to the setting aside of orders, allowing the appeals and granting consequential benefits to the appellants. en-us Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Jan 2019 07:36:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373938 The case involved the confiscation of seized goods, imposition of penalties, and demand for Central Excise Duty confirmed by the Adjudication Order. The Appeals were rejected, denying SSI Exemption on PVC soles and granules due to brand ownership issues. The legal battle focused on proving brand ownership and its impact on SSI Exemption eligibility. The authorities' misinterpretation of statements led to benefit denial under Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-C.E. Ultimately, discrepancies in evidence led to the setting aside of orders, allowing the appeals and granting consequential benefits to the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373938