https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53552 The appeal was successful as the Court found that the brand names used by the appellants belonged to a director of the company, entitling them to the SSI exemption. The demand for duty prior to August 2002 was time-barred due to lack of specific allegations, and no duty could be demanded thereafter due to the exemption. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The case underscores the significance of proper brand name registration and adherence to time limitations in duty demands, requiring specific allegations in show cause notices for extended periods. en-us Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:25:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53552 The appeal was successful as the Court found that the brand names used by the appellants belonged to a director of the company, entitling them to the SSI exemption. The demand for duty prior to August 2002 was time-barred due to lack of specific allegations, and no duty could be demanded thereafter due to the exemption. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief. The case underscores the significance of proper brand name registration and adherence to time limitations in duty demands, requiring specific allegations in show cause notices for extended periods. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 02 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53552