https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51768 Goods cleared under a brand name applied for in another proprietor's name were held ineligible for small scale exemption, because the exemption under Notification No. 1/93 did not extend to goods bearing another person's brand name. The demand was held to fall within the extended limitation period, as the assessees' declaration of use of their own brand name was inconsistent with the undisclosed registration position and amounted to suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. Duty was required to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis with Modvat credit adjustment. Unit-wise penalties were to be reconsidered after recomputation, while individual penalties under Rule 209A were set aside. en-us Wed, 18 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 May 2019 13:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51768 Goods cleared under a brand name applied for in another proprietor's name were held ineligible for small scale exemption, because the exemption under Notification No. 1/93 did not extend to goods bearing another person's brand name. The demand was held to fall within the extended limitation period, as the assessees' declaration of use of their own brand name was inconsistent with the undisclosed registration position and amounted to suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. Duty was required to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis with Modvat credit adjustment. Unit-wise penalties were to be reconsidered after recomputation, while individual penalties under Rule 209A were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 18 Dec 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51768