https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51181 Use of another person's brand name disentitles a unit from the small scale industry exemption, and the fact that the branded goods were different from those made by the brand owner does not restore eligibility. The extended period of limitation could not be applied for the full demand because the brand use was not disclosed, but the classification list had been approved and there was no material of positive suppression or comparable culpable conduct; only the demand for March 1995 survived. As only part of the demand remained, the duty was remitted for recomputation for that period, while the penalty and confiscation were set aside. en-us Wed, 02 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:53:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51181 Use of another person's brand name disentitles a unit from the small scale industry exemption, and the fact that the branded goods were different from those made by the brand owner does not restore eligibility. The extended period of limitation could not be applied for the full demand because the brand use was not disclosed, but the classification list had been approved and there was no material of positive suppression or comparable culpable conduct; only the demand for March 1995 survived. As only part of the demand remained, the duty was remitted for recomputation for that period, while the penalty and confiscation were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51181