https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427010 The tribunal dismissed the appeal of Appellant 1, confirming the denial of SSI exemption and upholding the demand for duty and penalties. Penalties on Appellants 2 and 3 were reduced from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 50,000 each. The tribunal found that the appellants did not qualify for SSI exemption due to using the "Gulab" brand name and exceeding the turnover limit. The extended period of limitation was deemed rightly invoked due to willful misstatement and suppression of facts to evade duty. The decision was based on detailed analysis and upheld the lower authority's findings. en-us Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Sep 2022 18:48:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427010 The tribunal dismissed the appeal of Appellant 1, confirming the denial of SSI exemption and upholding the demand for duty and penalties. Penalties on Appellants 2 and 3 were reduced from Rs. 2 lakh to Rs. 50,000 each. The tribunal found that the appellants did not qualify for SSI exemption due to using the "Gulab" brand name and exceeding the turnover limit. The extended period of limitation was deemed rightly invoked due to willful misstatement and suppression of facts to evade duty. The decision was based on detailed analysis and upheld the lower authority's findings. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=427010