https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52732 SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where medicines bore a brand name belonging to another person ineligible for the benefit, and later trademark steps did not change ownership for the relevant period. On the facts, non-disclosure of that ownership position to the department justified invocation of the extended limitation period for suppression with intent to evade duty. Penalty on the firm was sustained because suppression was established, but separate penalties on the partners were not warranted once the firm had already been penalised for the same offence. en-us Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Oct 2010 14:50:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52732 SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where medicines bore a brand name belonging to another person ineligible for the benefit, and later trademark steps did not change ownership for the relevant period. On the facts, non-disclosure of that ownership position to the department justified invocation of the extended limitation period for suppression with intent to evade duty. Penalty on the firm was sustained because suppression was established, but separate penalties on the partners were not warranted once the firm had already been penalised for the same offence. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 24 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52732