https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82139 Paragraph 7 and Explanation VIII of Exemption Notification No. 175/86 had to be read together when assessing whether bags manufactured as job-work for packing cement were disqualified by the customer's brand name. On that construction, the brand name was treated as linked to the customer's end-product rather than to the bags as independent specified goods, so the applicants were not treated as ineligible for interim relief on that basis. Financial hardship was also relevant to the request for waiver of pre-deposit. Interim relief was granted, with recovery of the disputed duty and penalty stayed pending disposal of the appeal. en-us Tue, 25 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jul 2011 12:03:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82139 Paragraph 7 and Explanation VIII of Exemption Notification No. 175/86 had to be read together when assessing whether bags manufactured as job-work for packing cement were disqualified by the customer's brand name. On that construction, the brand name was treated as linked to the customer's end-product rather than to the bags as independent specified goods, so the applicants were not treated as ineligible for interim relief on that basis. Financial hardship was also relevant to the request for waiver of pre-deposit. Interim relief was granted, with recovery of the disputed duty and penalty stayed pending disposal of the appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 25 Aug 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82139