https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374937 SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE depended on legally established ownership of the brand name "SNT". The assignment deed was treated as doubtful because it was unsigned by the assignee and witness and bore no assignment date, while the assignor's later trade mark renewal conduct showed ownership had not passed on the claimed date. Exemption was therefore available only from 06.12.2006, when the assessee's own trade mark application supported recognition of ownership. On limitation, mere disclosure of use of the brand name was insufficient because ownership facts were not disclosed; this was treated as suppression and misdeclaration. The demand was held not time-barred, and the matter was remanded for re-quantification on the restricted exemption period. en-us Tue, 05 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374937 SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE depended on legally established ownership of the brand name "SNT". The assignment deed was treated as doubtful because it was unsigned by the assignee and witness and bore no assignment date, while the assignor's later trade mark renewal conduct showed ownership had not passed on the claimed date. Exemption was therefore available only from 06.12.2006, when the assessee's own trade mark application supported recognition of ownership. On limitation, mere disclosure of use of the brand name was insufficient because ownership facts were not disclosed; this was treated as suppression and misdeclaration. The demand was held not time-barred, and the matter was remanded for re-quantification on the restricted exemption period. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374937