https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84377 Notification No. 140/83, before its amendment by Notification No. 224/87, did not by itself deny exemption merely because goods carried another person's brand name or trade name. Exemption could be refused only where the department established that the manufacturer was not the actual manufacturer, or that the transactions were not on a principal-to-principal basis and at arm's length. On the stated facts, the assessee manufactured goods in its own factory, purchased raw materials independently, and sold the finished goods on principal-to-principal terms, so the exemption remained available and the demand was not sustainable. en-us Wed, 08 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jul 2011 16:00:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84377 Notification No. 140/83, before its amendment by Notification No. 224/87, did not by itself deny exemption merely because goods carried another person's brand name or trade name. Exemption could be refused only where the department established that the manufacturer was not the actual manufacturer, or that the transactions were not on a principal-to-principal basis and at arm's length. On the stated facts, the assessee manufactured goods in its own factory, purchased raw materials independently, and sold the finished goods on principal-to-principal terms, so the exemption remained available and the demand was not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 08 Feb 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84377