https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51188 Small-scale exemption under Notification No. 140/83-C.E. was treated as unavailable only where the goods bore another person's brand name; the appellants' own brand names and house mark were found insufficient to deny the exemption, so the brand-name-based duty demand failed. Allegations of clandestine removal also required cogent evidence of clearance without duty, and the Revenue's reliance on dealer seizures, tabulations, and isolated statements did not conclusively prove removal for the disputed goods, so substantial demand was not sustained. Confiscation was maintained for goods found without duty-paying documents or unaccounted in the factory, and penalties were correspondingly reduced or set aside in part. en-us Mon, 11 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Sep 2010 12:09:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51188 Small-scale exemption under Notification No. 140/83-C.E. was treated as unavailable only where the goods bore another person's brand name; the appellants' own brand names and house mark were found insufficient to deny the exemption, so the brand-name-based duty demand failed. Allegations of clandestine removal also required cogent evidence of clearance without duty, and the Revenue's reliance on dealer seizures, tabulations, and isolated statements did not conclusively prove removal for the disputed goods, so substantial demand was not sustained. Confiscation was maintained for goods found without duty-paying documents or unaccounted in the factory, and penalties were correspondingly reduced or set aside in part. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 11 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51188