https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293735 The appellant, a manufacturer of testing equipment, appealed against duty liability and penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944, claiming benefits under specific notifications for the period between 1996-98. The duty liability was imposed due to the goods bearing a logo/monogram allegedly owned by another entity. The court emphasized the necessity to establish a connection between the logo used and the manufacturer to classify it as a brand name. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, finding no evidence that the appellant derived any benefit in terms of goodwill or market enhancement from using the brand name. en-us Tue, 08 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 27 Feb 2021 11:03:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293735 The appellant, a manufacturer of testing equipment, appealed against duty liability and penalties under the Central Excise Act, 1944, claiming benefits under specific notifications for the period between 1996-98. The duty liability was imposed due to the goods bearing a logo/monogram allegedly owned by another entity. The court emphasized the necessity to establish a connection between the logo used and the manufacturer to classify it as a brand name. Ultimately, the court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, finding no evidence that the appellant derived any benefit in terms of goodwill or market enhancement from using the brand name. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 08 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293735