https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52186 Small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was considered in relation to branded goods and alleged clandestine removal. The text states that the Revenue had the burden to prove use of another person's brand name; because ownership of the marks was not established and the respondent's claim that the markings were already present on imported components was unrebutted, the exemption was treated as available. It also states that clandestine removal cannot be inferred from two unsigned loose papers alone; without corroboration from records, procurement, manufacture, or clearance evidence, and in light of the retracted statement, the allegation was not sustainable. en-us Fri, 11 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:12:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52186 Small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was considered in relation to branded goods and alleged clandestine removal. The text states that the Revenue had the burden to prove use of another person's brand name; because ownership of the marks was not established and the respondent's claim that the markings were already present on imported components was unrebutted, the exemption was treated as available. It also states that clandestine removal cannot be inferred from two unsigned loose papers alone; without corroboration from records, procurement, manufacture, or clearance evidence, and in light of the retracted statement, the allegation was not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 11 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52186