https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51494 Small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was denied where goods bore the brand name of another person; registration of the mark was not required for the bar to apply. Allegations of clandestine clearance were largely supported by employee statements, parallel invoices and diary entries, so the duty demand was substantially sustained, though the portion tied to diary entries already used against another concern was excluded for reconsideration. Penalties were treated separately: Section 11AC could not apply retrospectively, the firm's composite penalty was remanded under Rule 173Q, the proprietress's penalty was set aside for want of notice under Rule 209A, and the penalty on the controlling person was upheld. en-us Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Sep 2010 11:18:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51494 Small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was denied where goods bore the brand name of another person; registration of the mark was not required for the bar to apply. Allegations of clandestine clearance were largely supported by employee statements, parallel invoices and diary entries, so the duty demand was substantially sustained, though the portion tied to diary entries already used against another concern was excluded for reconsideration. Penalties were treated separately: Section 11AC could not apply retrospectively, the firm's composite penalty was remanded under Rule 173Q, the proprietress's penalty was set aside for want of notice under Rule 209A, and the penalty on the controlling person was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51494