https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83000 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was unavailable where excisable goods carried another person's brand identity, including its logo, colour scheme and trade presentation, because para 7 excluded goods bearing the brand name or trade name of an ineligible person. The use of the collaborator's mark and packaging, together with the technical collaboration arrangement and related commercial features, was treated as sufficient to attract the exclusion. On limitation, extended period could not be invoked because the relevant facts were already within departmental knowledge from factory visits, cartons, annual report and collaboration details, so conscious suppression or wilful withholding was not proved. The demand was therefore confined to the normal six-month period. en-us Tue, 22 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jul 2011 18:05:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83000 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was unavailable where excisable goods carried another person's brand identity, including its logo, colour scheme and trade presentation, because para 7 excluded goods bearing the brand name or trade name of an ineligible person. The use of the collaborator's mark and packaging, together with the technical collaboration arrangement and related commercial features, was treated as sufficient to attract the exclusion. On limitation, extended period could not be invoked because the relevant facts were already within departmental knowledge from factory visits, cartons, annual report and collaboration details, so conscious suppression or wilful withholding was not proved. The demand was therefore confined to the normal six-month period. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 22 Jun 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83000