https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50169 Affixing another person's brand name on excisable goods disqualifies a manufacturer from the small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., and adding its own sticker does not remove that bar; the duty demand was therefore sustained. Non-disclosure of the rival brand name in the classification list amounted to suppression of a material fact, so the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A was invocable. Penalty under Rule 209A required proof of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation: penalties were upheld, though reduced, against the two corporate appellants, while the penalties on the three individuals were set aside for lack of specific particulars. en-us Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:32:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50169 Affixing another person's brand name on excisable goods disqualifies a manufacturer from the small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., and adding its own sticker does not remove that bar; the duty demand was therefore sustained. Non-disclosure of the rival brand name in the classification list amounted to suppression of a material fact, so the extended limitation period under the proviso to Section 11A was invocable. Penalty under Rule 209A required proof of knowledge or reason to believe that the goods were liable to confiscation: penalties were upheld, though reduced, against the two corporate appellants, while the penalties on the three individuals were set aside for lack of specific particulars. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 21 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50169