https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417840 The dispute concerned whether the department could apply the extended limitation period for an excise demand and whether SSI exemption was available despite an allegation that the goods were made under another's brand name. The order records that the assessee relied on the North-East exemption scheme and maintained that the Gulab brand was adopted only from 1 December 2006, while the department relied on contrary statements to deny exemption for branded goods. The Court noted, prima facie, that the department had not discharged the burden of proving brand use before that date, but the relevant notification for North-East units was not immediately available, so the hearing remained inconclusive and the matter was listed again. en-us Thu, 27 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Feb 2022 07:34:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417840 The dispute concerned whether the department could apply the extended limitation period for an excise demand and whether SSI exemption was available despite an allegation that the goods were made under another's brand name. The order records that the assessee relied on the North-East exemption scheme and maintained that the Gulab brand was adopted only from 1 December 2006, while the department relied on contrary statements to deny exemption for branded goods. The Court noted, prima facie, that the department had not discharged the burden of proving brand use before that date, but the relevant notification for North-East units was not immediately available, so the hearing remained inconclusive and the matter was listed again. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 27 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417840