https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84068 The dispute concerned eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86 where the goods carried a brand name but were manufactured for supply to a customer for further manufacture. A later CBEC clarification on the scope of the brand name restriction was treated as materially relevant to that eligibility question, because it indicated that such supplies may not necessarily fall within the mischief of the bar. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration by the original authority, leaving the exemption claim open for a new decision on all connected appeals. en-us Fri, 09 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:02:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84068 The dispute concerned eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 175/86 where the goods carried a brand name but were manufactured for supply to a customer for further manufacture. A later CBEC clarification on the scope of the brand name restriction was treated as materially relevant to that eligibility question, because it indicated that such supplies may not necessarily fall within the mischief of the bar. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration by the original authority, leaving the exemption claim open for a new decision on all connected appeals. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 09 Dec 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84068