https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82204 Notification No. 175/86 denied small-scale exemption only where the manufacturer used on the specified goods the brand name of another person who was not eligible for the concession. The exclusion therefore depended on two foundational findings: that the brand name belonged to another person in the relevant legal sense, and that such person was ineligible for the notification. As the record contained no finding that M/s Doshi Electronics had the legal right to the brand name for wall clocks, or that it was itself ineligible, invocation of para 7 could not be sustained. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable and required fresh adjudication on ownership and eligibility. en-us Thu, 01 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jul 2011 16:39:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82204 Notification No. 175/86 denied small-scale exemption only where the manufacturer used on the specified goods the brand name of another person who was not eligible for the concession. The exclusion therefore depended on two foundational findings: that the brand name belonged to another person in the relevant legal sense, and that such person was ineligible for the notification. As the record contained no finding that M/s Doshi Electronics had the legal right to the brand name for wall clocks, or that it was itself ineligible, invocation of para 7 could not be sustained. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable and required fresh adjudication on ownership and eligibility. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 01 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82204