https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53968 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Commissioner's decision to deny SSI Notification benefits based on the use of the brand name "Mr. Butler." The Tribunal found that there was no clear evidence establishing M/s. Protech Appliances Ltd. as the exclusive owner of the brand name, noting that both units had applied for it. As the ownership was unclear and the appellants had used the brand name since 1985, the Tribunal concluded that any misdeclaration could be attributed to M/s. PAL. Therefore, the Tribunal found no justification for the Commissioner's actions and ruled in favor of the appellants. en-us Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Oct 2010 11:44:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53968 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Commissioner's decision to deny SSI Notification benefits based on the use of the brand name "Mr. Butler." The Tribunal found that there was no clear evidence establishing M/s. Protech Appliances Ltd. as the exclusive owner of the brand name, noting that both units had applied for it. As the ownership was unclear and the appellants had used the brand name since 1985, the Tribunal concluded that any misdeclaration could be attributed to M/s. PAL. Therefore, the Tribunal found no justification for the Commissioner's actions and ruled in favor of the appellants. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53968